Gasch v. Britton’s Empirical Analysis
202 F.2d 356 · 1953
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1998
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 901
Relies on Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt · Hawks v. Hamill · Industrial Commission v. McCartin · Victory Sparkler & Specialty Co. v. Francks · Solvuca v. Ryan & Reilly 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[1] True, this Maryland case did not directly involve the effect of an award in that State upon a claim for compensation in another jurisdiction, as does the case at bar. So, in a strict sense, it may be challenged as dictum, yet considered dictum. The court was directly concerned with the meaning and effect of the exclusionary provisions of the Act as they bore upon the extent of and limitations on the rights and liabilities of employer and employee. Hence, the court’s assertion that, aside from exceptions created by the Act ‘operation of the law is exclusive of all other remedy and liability, with respect to both employer and employee,’ is strongly persuasive, even though we may not be bound to accept it. The unanimous opinion, thus expressed, is a clear exposition of the statute by the highest court of the State; not in conflict with any of its other decisions. It meets the criterion of ‘clearly considered dictum as distinguished from mere comment in the nature of obiter,’ and should, we think, be regarded in that light.” 202 F. 2d 359 -360.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“True, this Maryland case [ Victory Sparkler, supra ] did not directly involve the effect of an award in that State upon a claim for compensation in another jurisdiction as does the case at bar. * * * [The Victory Sparkler case has] `clearly considered dictum' [on the point of exclusiveness of the remedy] * * * * * * the language of the Maryland Court of Appeals in the Victory Sparkler case applies with equal force to the case at bar. There, as we have shown, the court in holding [in Victory Sparkler, supra ] `operation of the law' to be `exclusive of all other remedy and liability' as to employer and employee, declared the meaning of the exclusionary clauses to be `so clear and unmistakable that it would be a denial of the legislative purpose to strike their plain terms from the statute by judicial construction.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“They [appellants] go so far as to insist that McCartin overrules the Magnolia Petroleum Co. decision. We think that is not so. McCartin complements, rather than opposes, (sic) the earlier decision. 92 U.S.App.D.C. at 65 , 202 F.2d at 358 .”
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.