Powell v. Galloway’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2001 · most notably Schumacher v. Leslie (1950), Schumacher v. Leslie (1950)
30 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 Hess v. Lowrey · Mansfield v. Commonwealth · Book v. City of Henderson · Ligon v. Allen · Ford v. Providence Coal Co.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The injury in this case, for which the employer was liable to pay compensation, was not inflicted by the negligence of a third party. . The employer was liable to pay compensation .only .for the injury sustained by the'employee while cranking the auto-' mobile, and was not liable for any subsequent damages that may have been caused by the neglect of. a physician. * * * “Section. 4890, Ky. Statutes- (now . -KRS 342.055), provides that the em-,. pl-oyer, 'or insurance carrier, having" paid the compensation or become liable. . therefor, shall have the right to recover in his own -name or that of the injured, employee from any third party who may be under a legal liability to pay damages for the injury. This statute necessárily refers to injuries inflicted by a third party through negligence or wrongful act, to an employee while on duty and in the course of his employment, and for which injuries the employer or insurance carrier becomes liable to pay compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It has no reference to subsequent injuries for ■which the employer or insurance carrier, is not li.able. They are liable only for injuries arising out of and .in the ■ course-, of the employment. ■ Plainly .Galloway could not recover compensation from his employer for injuries resulting to him from any negligence. of his physician. Nor could the .employer, or his insurance carrier, maintain any action against the physician for negligent injury to Galloway. The physician was l”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCorkle v. McCorkle
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.