Newman v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 state decisions

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

1. ““Whether an accident arises out of and in the course of the workman’s employment depends upon the facts peculiar to the particular case.” 212 Kan. 562 , Syl. ¶ 3.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 9 Kan. App. 2d 435 - Messenger v. Sage Drilling Co. · Atkins v. Webcon

2. ““Here the circumstances revealed, and the fact-finders so declared, the nature of the decedent’s work was such that he was expected to use a pickup truck as a part of his employment with all of his employers. He was required to haul heavy tools, equipment and supplies in servicing the leases and keeping the wells in operation. Use of the truck was vital in making repairs as promptly as possible. His duties were not confined to particular premises nor was his pay dependent solely on services to be performed on the premises’ of each particular lease. Driving a pickup truck, as distinguished from an ordinary passenger automobile, and having it available for immediate use when needed, was definitely a part of the service for which the decedent was being compensated by each employer. It cannot be said that such travel was of a type purely personal to him — he was required to have certain equipment and supplies with him and available while on duty and also to have a mode of rapid transportation. Clearly travel on the public highway was regarded by all as a part of his work.” 212 Kan. at 568 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scott v. Hughes

3. ““This court has had occasion many times to consider the phrase ‘out of’ the employment, and has stated that it points to the cause or origin of the accident and requires some causal connection between the accidental injury and the employment. [Citations omitted.] “This general rule has been elaborated to the effect that an injury arises ‘out of’ employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury [citations omitted], “An injury arises ‘out of’ employment if it arises out of the nature, conditions, obligations and incidents of the employment [citations omitted]. In Taber v. Tole Landscape Co., 181 Kan. 616 , 313 P.2d 290 , this court stated the foregoing tests exclude an injury not fairly traceable to the employment and not coming from a hazard to which the workman would have been equally exposed apart from the employment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 5 Kan. App. 2d 298 - Martin v. Unified School District No. 233