Siebert v. Hoch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 30 state decisions

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Our workmen's compensation act (K.S.A. 44-501) provides that in order to be compensable an accidental injury must arise `out of' and `in the course of' the employment. The two phrases have separate and distinct meanings ( Floro v. Ticehurst, 147 Kan. 426 , 76 P.2d 773 , Bailey v. Mosby Hotel Co., 160 Kan. 258 , 160 P.2d 701 ); they are conjunctive and each condition must exist before compensation is allowable ( Pinkston v. Rice Motor Co., 180 Kan. 295 , 303 P.2d 197 , Tompkins v. Rinner Construction Co., 194 Kan. 278 , 398 P.2d 578 ); and as to when every case must be determined upon its own facts. "The phrase `in the course of' employment relates to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident occurred, and means the injury happened while the workman was at work in his employer's service ( Pinkston v. Rice Motor Co., supra). "This court has had occasion many times to consider the phrase `out of' the employment, and has stated that it points to the cause or origin of the accident and requires some causal connection between the accidental injury and the employment. Some of our decisions to this effect are: Carney v. Hellar, 155 Kan. 674 , 127 P.2d 496 ; Jones v. Lozier-Broderick & Gordon, 160 Kan. 191 , 160 P.2d 932 ; Neal v. Boeing Airplane Co., 161 Kan. 322 , 167 P.2d 643 ; Hilyard v. Lohmann-Johnson Drilling Co., 168 Kan. 177 , 211 P.2d 89 ; Pinkston v. Rice Motor Co., supra; and Bohanan v. Schlozman Ford, Inc., 188 Kan. 795 , 366 P.2d 28 . "This general rule”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 56 Kan. App. 2d 232 - Johnson v. U.S. Food Service · Craig v. Electrolux Corporation

2. ““2. All respondents claim that the death of Mr. Newman did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. They emphasize the provisions of K. S.A. 44-508 (k). They predicate their position on the contention the decedent was on his way to or from work so far as each of them is concerned. I do not believe this position is tenable. An oil field pumper is ordinarily at work the moment he arrives at his pickup in the morning and continues to be so until he returns from servicing the leases. I do not intend to indicate by this opinion that every worker who carries hand tools to his job is at work during the time he is traveling to and from the place where he uses the tools. It should be kept in mind in this case, however, that there was more than the incidental carrying of small tools. As is usual with oil field pumpers in this area, Mr. Newman had provided himself with a pickup truck. This truck was a necessity, because it was used to carry heavy tools, parts from the lease that need to be repaired, and supplies to be used on the lease such as oil and grease. An ordinary passenger vehicle would not have been adequate. The tools and supplies he carried were not his own. Most of them belonged to Mr. Campbell. It was his job, moreover, to go to the store to obtain supplies before going to the leases. For instance, the testimony shows that the 53 State Street lease engine used oil, which he carried with him to add when needed. “As a practical matter, the practice of oil field p”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Newman v. Bennett

3. ““Viewed as a totally unexplained assault appellees still may not prevail in the light of the rules already stated. Once the burglary theory is eliminated, the record contains no showing the employment brought the workman in contact with the risk that in fact caused his death or that it increased that risk — as was the situation in Stark v. Wilson, Receiver, 114 Kan. 459 , 219 Pac. 507 , and in Phillips — or of any connection at all between the employment and the death.” p. 307.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hensley v. Carl Graham Glass