192 F. Supp. 462 - O'LEARY v. James & Wunderlich’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 1995
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United New York & New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Ass'n v. Halecki · West v. United States · Ulmen v. Schwieger · Halecki v. United New York & New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Ass'n · Cassaday v. City of Billings
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Does the non-delegable duty of a contractor to the public extend to one who by written contract has agreed to perform according to specifications the very work from which the alleged injury arose? It does not appear to me that the rule of Ulmén v. Schwieger may be so extended, even if we assume that the work which O’Leary was performing was inherently dangerous. O’Leary himself was responsible for the method and manner of work. He agreed to perform according to the specifications upon which plaintiffs must rely. ****** “Under Ulmén v. Schwieger, defendants might be liable to the public or other third persons for any negligence of either Hakes or O’Leary. They are not liable to O’Leary himself.” ( 192 F.Supp. at 474-475 ).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as are contained in the Morrison-Knudsen contract. 47 The district court in O'Leary granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict. It pointed out that there was no contention that defendants furnished an unsafe place to work or that there were lurking dangers in the premises. 7”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The negligence claimed is the failure of the defendants to ascertain that the independent contractor Hakes was performing inherently dangerous work in an improper manner.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.