Bennett v. Vanderbilt University’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 1989 · most notably Proctor-Silex Corp. v. DeBrick (1969), Department of Correction v. Harris (1963)
35 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 Rogers's Case · Smith v. Camel Mfg. Co. · 158 Pa. Super. 448 - Young v. Hamilton Watch Co. · Josselyn v. Dearborn · Moore v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . There is a distinction between the ‘premises’ and the ‘property’ of the employer, as used in compensation cases. While all property owned by an employer may be likewise called ‘premises’ in general usage, it is obvious from our cases, that ‘premises’ under our compensation statute means the part of the property where the employee is to do his work, including that part which he is required to use for ingress and egress.” Bennett v. Vanderbilt University, 198 Tenn. 1 , 277 S.W.2d 386 (1955).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is apparent from the foregoing quotation [from Little v. Johnson City Foundry & Mach. Co., 158 Tenn. 102 , 11 S.W.2d 690 (1928)] that this Court has rejected the general statement that an accident suffered by an employee in going to and from work was compensable if it occurred on the employer’s premises, or so near the place of employment as reasonably would be regarded as in effect at the place, unless there were some special considerations as the requirement of use of a special road or way, or if the manner of travel or the way of travel was within the contemplation of the contract of employment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"... that if a process of going to and from is furnished by the employer or is required by the employer to be done in a certain manner or over a certain way, and this submits the employee to a definite special hazard, then in such event such accidents are compensable; otherwise not, as the employee is not to be considered in the course of his employment until he has actually arrived at his place of employment, ready to begin his activities in the employer's work. * * *" 217 Tenn. at 465 , 398 S.W.2d at 268 .”
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.