Scribner's Case’s Empirical Analysis
1918
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably 236 Mo. App. 971 - Ellegood v. Brashear Freight Lines, Inc. (1942), Massolini v. Driscoll (1932)
2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 · Pigeon's Case · Western Indemnity Co. v. Pillsbury · Coughlan v. City of Cambridge · Matter of De Noyer v. . Cavanaugh
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘In determining whether, in a particular act, he is the servant of his Original master or of the person to whom he has been furnished, the general test is whether the act is done in business of which the person is in control as a proprietor, so that he can at any time stop it or continue it, and determine the way in which it shall be done, not merely in reference to the result to be reached, but in reference to the method of reaching the result.’ (Shepard v. Jacobs, 204 Mass. 110, 112 , [ 134 Am. St. Rep. 648 , 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 442, 90 N. E. 392, 393 ].) ‘The test is whether, in the particular service which he is engaged to perform, he continues liable to" the direction and control of his master, or becomes subject to that of the party to whom he is lent or hired.’ (Coughlan v. Cambridge, 166 Mass. 268, 277 , [ 44 N. E. 218, 219 ].) Applying these tests, it is clear that Scribner at the time of the injury was an employee of the coal company. He was in that company’s yard, engaged in its business and doing its work; and he was under its direction and subject to its orders. "Whatever may have been the relation of Scribner to the ice company in the care and management of the horses, at the time of his injury he was engaged _ in work over which that company had no control. (Italics ours.) The business was that of the coal company and under its direction. The transaction between the two companies amounted only to a loan ofx the ice company’s servant to the coal company,—the s”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the general test is whether the act is done in business of which the person is in control as a proprietor, so that he can at any time stop it or continue it, and determine the way in which it shall be done, not merely in reference to the result to be reached, but in reference to the method of reaching the result. . . . The test is whether, in the particular service which he is engaged to perform, he continues liable to the direction and control of his master or becomes subject to that of the party to whom he is lent or hired.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the direction and control of his master, or becomes subject to that of the party to whom he is lent or hired.’ (Coughlan v. Cambridge, 166 Mass. 268, 277 , [ 44 N. E. 218, 219 ].) Applying these tests, it is clear that Scribner at the time of the injury was an employee of the coal company. He was in that company’s yard, engaged in its business and doing its work; and he was under its direction and subject to its orders.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.