Fegles Const. Co. v. McLaughlin Const. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
205 F.2d 637 · 1953
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably United States v. Nelson (1969), State v. Buchanan (1981)
15 federal appellate · 1 district · 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Hinshaw v. State · New York Life Insurance v. McNeely · Jackson v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
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.
““It is the general rule that an employer or primary contractor is not liable for the torts of an independent contractor. This rule is based upon the theory that the employer does not possess the power of controlling the person employed as to the details of the stipulated work and therefore is not answerable for an injury resulting from the manner in which the work is carried out. This general rule is subject to exceptions, one of which is applicable here. An employer or primary contractor is liable for injuries caused by the failure of an independent contractor to exercise due care with respect to the performance of work which is inherently or intrinsically dangerous. * * * This exception places an absolute, nondelegable duty upon the employer to see that all reasonable precautions shall be taken during the performance of the work to the end that third persons may be adequately protected against injury.” ( 205 F.2d at 640 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““alter the general rule that in civil cases a preponderance of the evidénce is sufficient to establish the fact in issue. While the plaintiff must show that the inferences favorable to him are more reasonable or probable than those against him, the circumstantial evidence in civil cases need not rise to that degree of certainty which will exclude every other reasonable conclusion. . . . When two or more inferences can be reasonably deduced from the facts, the reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court’.” Fegles, 205 F.2d at 639 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Boone““subject to tire rule that if the conclusion reached from the facts in the chain of circumstances is equally consonant with the issues to be proven and with some other theory or theories inconsistent therewith, it becomes a mere conjecture, and the rule of the burden of proof is not satisfied.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Boone
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.