Fauver v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Henderson v. Central Tel. Co. of Virginia (1987), Whalen v. Dean Steel Erection Co., Inc. (1985)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 66 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 Feitig v. Chalkley · Matter of Parchefsky v. Kroll Bros., Inc. · Ross v. Erickson Construction Co. · Noblin v. Randolph Corp. · Griffith v. Raven Red Ash Coal Co.
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is next argued that the treatment of compensatory injury is a part of the employer’s business, because he is compelled to furnish medical attention and made liable for the consequences of malpractice, and that, hence the attending physician or surgeon falls within the category of ‘those conducting his (the employer’s) business. * * *’ “There is no merit in the contention. * * * The employer was not engaged in the business or profession of practicing medicine or surgery. The physician, on the other hand, was not engaged in the business pursuit of the employer but in his own business or calling. He was an independent contractor and not a fellow servant of the employee. He was a third party, a party conducting his own business, a business other than that of the employer or the employee.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee ... on account of personal injury or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee ... at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service or death.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the Act both employer and employee surrender former rights and gain certain advantages. The employee surrenders his right to bring an action at law against his employer for full damages and agrees to accept a sum fixed by statute, based on the extent of his injuries and the amount of his wages. He gains a wider security in line with the more inclusive recovery afforded. The employer surrenders his right of defense on the grounds of contributory negligence, assumption of risk and the fellow servant rule. He is relieved from liability for damages to the employee for which in an ordinary negligence case he might otherwise be liable to a much greater extent. Negligence is of no concern in a compensation case unless the injury is caused by the employee’s wilful negligence or misconduct. Rules of evidence are relaxed and procedures simplified. Rights granted and obligations imposed are limited as granted or imposed by the Act and are in their nature contractual.”
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.