McCune v. Pell & Brother’s Empirical Analysis
1921
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 1970
5 federal appellate · 15 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 Phil Hollenbach Co. v. Hollenbach · Greene v. Caldwell · Kentucky State Journal Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Board
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is clear that the constitutionality of the present Compensation Act is based upon the facts that the acceptance of the act is, under its terms, a. purely voluntary matter of election by the employer and employe, and that each and all of the provisions of the act become effective and binding upon employer and employe solely through this voluntary acceptance, which, in effect, ydien made by both, becomes an agreement or contract between the parties. Without this acceptance by both employer and employe the act cannot, nor can any of its provisions,, apply to either. See [Kentucky] State Journal Company v. Workmen’s Compensation Board, 161 Ky. 562 , 170 S. W. 437, 1166 , L. R. A. 1916A, 389, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 1273; Greene v. Caldwell, 170 Ky. 571 , 186 S. W. 648 , Ann. Cas. 1918B, 604. “Therefore, it is apparent that the all-important matter at the very threshold of the relation of employer and employe is that of preserving in some form indisputable evidence of the acceptance or nonaeceptance of the act by each. It needs no argument to demonstrate how important such indisputable evidence is to the employe, for he is not only the chief beneficiary of the act, but is the one whose rights must frequently depend upon the preservation of such evidence. Death or even disability of the employe might, in many cases, render it impossible to prove the acceptance, unless the evidence is preserved in some indisputable form. If it were not so preserved, acceptance of the act might frequent”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McClary v. McClary
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.