Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2005 SD 64 - Mudlin v. Hills Materials Co.

Mudlin v. Hills Materials Co.’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
September 2021
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2021

16 state decisions

60200520102020decided

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 VerBouwens v. Hamm Wood Products · Helmbolt v. LeMars Mutual Insurance Co. · Steinberg v. South Dakota Department of Military & Veterans Affairs · Matter of University of Minnesota · Wagaman v. Sioux Falls Construction

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

  1. “In order for an injury to “arise out of’ the employment, the employee must show that there is a causal connection between the injury and the employment. The employment need not be the direct or the proximate cause of the injury, rather it is sufficient if the accident had its origin in the hazard to which the employment exposed the employee while doing [her] work. The injury “arose out of’ the employment if: 1) the employment contributes to causing the injury; 2) the activity is one in which the employee might reasonably engage; or 3) the activity brings about the disability upon which compensation is based.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “An employee is considered within his course of employment if he is doing something that is either naturally or incidentally related to his employment or which he is either expressly or impliedly authorized to do by the contract or nature of the employment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The travel pay policy is to reimburse employees travel expenses when their job dictates travel beyond ½ hour of their base location. Travel can be by either company furnished or private vehicle and will be treated as follows: Company Vehicle: Employee driving vehicle will be on the payroll and be paid their normal hourly wage. All other employees riding in company vehicle will not be compensated for travel and their time will start when their specific task is started at the jobsite. Personal Vehicle: If no company vehicle is used to transport employees, employees are expected to furnish personal transportation to the jobsite. To reimburse employees for additional expenses, all employees that are transported to jobsites in excess of ½ hour from their base location in a personal vehicle will be reimbursed at the rate of $6.00 per hour for travel (after the first !⅛ hour) one way. The return to the base location will not be reimbursed no matter when the return trip takes place. Payroll time will start when the specific task is started at the jobsite. Car-pooling is encouraged as is sharing the cost with the vehicle owner. The method of transportation is a decision made by the supervisor of the specific crews.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.