Atchison, T. & S. F. Co. v. Wottle’s Empirical Analysis
193 F.2d 628 · 1952
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2000 · most notably Davis v. Burlington Northern, Inc. (1976), Wilson v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, & Pacific Railroad (1988)
16 federal appellate · 7 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 North Carolina Railroad Company v. James a Zachary · Erie Railroad v. Winfield · Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles · New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Carr · Mostyn v. Delaware
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[Gjiven its most liberal interpretation, the Act cannot be extended to cover activities not necessarily incident to or an integral part of employment in interstate commerce. It obviously does not cover activities undertaken by an employee for a private purpose and having no causal relationship with his employment.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The case said to be most like ours, and upon which appellee relies, is Mostyn v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 2 Cir., 160 F.2d 15, 17 , where a casual laborer on the railroad was provided bed and board in bunk cars located on the tracks in connection with his employment. After the day’s work, he went to town, but returned to sleep in the bunk cars. Driven out of the bunk cars because of the verminous condition of the bedding furnished by the Company, he was injured while sleeping by the side of the tracks. Deciding its case squarely on the facts presented, the court reasoned that ‘when a railroad provides shelter or food or both for its employees, and they are using the accommodations so provided to prepare themselves for their work, or to rest and recuperate, they must be regarded as in its “employ” ’; and that inasmuch as he would have been covered while sleeping in a bunk house, he was likewise covered at the point where he had been driven in search of that which was provided. Applying that reasoning to our facts, it is argued that since, at the time of the accident the employee was in quest of groceries to bring back to the bunk house, to be used to sustain him for his interstate employment, his activity was necessarily incident to and a part of such employment. “By this process of reasoning, the Act can be extended to cover all activities of an employee intended to sustain or prepare him for his interstate employment, regardless of time or place, or whether in pursuit of a”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the difficulty arises, as always, in drawing the dividing line in the twilight zone. Adjudicated cases are helpful only as factual analogies.”
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.