227 Mo. App. 1217 - Gillmore v. Ring Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Employers whose work require that men wait upon the job for work conditions, ought not to be heard to say that an accident, occurring out of the very conditions presented by the required waiting is not compensatory. Men standing and waiting around an open fire on a damp December day naturally mill around and talk and even joke and indulge in what might be termed ‘horseplay’. Where the purpose of the law is to do away with the issue of negligence, accident, assumed risk, contributory negligence, and the like, it follows that the law should be liberally construed. We conclude, from the undisputed facts in evidence in this case, that as a matter of law it should be held that the accident wherein the complainant was injured arose out of and in the course of his employment. Keithley v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 226 Mo.App. 1122 , 49 S.W.2d 296 , and Hager v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., (Mo.App.), 17 S.W.2d 578 .” (Emphasis supplied)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Peet v. Garner Oil Company

2. ““Employers, whose work requires that men wait upon the job for work conditions, ought not to be heard to say that an accident, occurring out of the very conditions presented by the required waiting, is not compensatory. Men standing and waiting around an open fire on a damp December day naturally mill around and talk and even joke and indulge in what might be termed ‘horseplay’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ransom v. HG Hill Company