Russell v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

88 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) Where several cases are pending upon different causes of action, involving in substance but one question, a court has inherent power to prevent the scandal to the administration of justice which would result from a trial of each case separately, and as one method of avoiding it may stay proceedings in all cases but one, and see whether the disposition of that one may not settle the others. Without tracing its history, this procedure is now firmly settled as a part of the common law. . . . “(2) Where several causes are pending between the same or different parties which grow out of a single transaction or which involve an inquiry into the same event in its general aspects, although the details of evidence may vary materially in fixing responsibility, the court may order them tried together. But they continue separate so far as concerns docket entries, verdicts, judgments and all aspects save only the one of joint trial. This is a frequent practice, and finds many illustrations in our decisions. Burke v. Hodge, 211 Mass. 156 , and cases collected at 159. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 1 Gray, 555 , 560. Commonwealth v. Seeley, 167 Mass. 163 . It is to a consolidation of this kind that reference was made by Mr. Justice Gray in Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U. S. 285 , in saying at p. 293, ‘But although the defendants might lawfully be compelled, at the discretion of the court, to try the cases together, the causes of action remained distinct, and required separate verdict”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Trusler v. GALAMBOS · Bane v. State

2. ““A determination of a question of fact by the Industrial Board is conclusive if it is supported by any substantial evidence including reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.” Russell v. Johnson (1942), 220 Ind. 649, 660 , 46 N.E.2d 219, 223 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 164 Ind. App. 381 - Rivera v. Simmons Company · 166 Ind. App. 5 - Martin v. Monsanto Company

3. ““The following persons are conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent for support upon a deceased employee and shall constitute the class known as presumptive dependents in the preceding section: “(a) A wife upon a husband with whom she is living at the time of his death, or upon whom the laws of the state impose the obligation of her support at such time. The term ‘wife’ as used in this subsection shall exclude a common-law wife unless such common-law relationship shall have existed openly and notoriously for a period of not less than five [5] years immediately preceding the death.” § 40-1403a, Burns’ 1940 Replacement (1947 Supp.), (Acts 1947, ch. 162, §8, p. 523.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Guevara v. Inland Steel Co.