Knox v. Batson’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1989), Wait v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois (2007)
45 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 McNicol's Case · Claim of Dependents of Marks v. Gray · Robins Silk Manufacturing Co. v. Consolidated Piece Dye Works · Whiting-Mead Commercial Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n · Tapp v. Tapp
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The phrases “arising out of” and “in the course of” are not synonymous; but, rather, embody distinct concepts which are primarily basic to liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. This has been repeatedly stated by this Court. It is only necessary to point out from McAdams v. Canale (1956), 200 Tenn. 655 , 294 S.W.2d 696 , the following: “ ‘Rising out of employment’ refers to the origin of the injury, while ‘in the course of employment’ refers to the time, place and circumstances. * * * The injury received must arise ‘out of’ the employment as well as ‘in the course of’ employment. Thornton v. RCA Service Co., Inc., 188 Tenn. 644 , 221 S.W.2d 954 .” Further, the Tennessee law is clear that if an employee suffers an accident in the course of employment, it does not necessarily follow that the injury arose out of his employment. See Sandlin v. Gentry (1957), 201 Tenn. 509 , 300 S.W.2d 897 , 399 S.W.2d at 770 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n determining whether an accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, each case must be decided with respect to its own attendant circumstances and not by resort to some formula.... Generally, an injury arises out of and in the course of the employment if it has a rational causal connection to the work and occurs while the employee is engaged in the duties of his employment. ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Further, the mere presence of the employee at the place of injury because of employment will not alone result in the injury being* considered as arising out of the employment. Injury or death of an employee, to be compensable, must arise out of a risk peculiar to the employment. 399 S.W.2d at 770 .”
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.