Nepstad v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Danek v. Meldrum Manufacturing & Engineering Co. (1977), Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railroad (1955)
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Standard Oil Company v. Edward Anderson · Driscoll v. Towle · Charles v. . Barrett · Hilgenberg v. Elam · McFarland v. Dixie MacHinery & Equipment 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * Since the question of liability is always raised because of some specific act done, the important question is not whether or not he remains the servant of the general employer as to matters generally, but whether or not, as to the act in question, he is acting in the business of and under the direction of one or the other.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘Though well established, the loaned-servant principle has proved troublesome in its application to individual fact situations. The criteria for determining when a worker becomes a loaned servant are not precise; as a result, the state of the law on this subject is chaotic. Respectable authority for almost any position can be found, for even within a single jurisdiction the decisions are in conflict.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The so-called ‘right of control or direction’ test assumes to place the responsibility for the servant’s negligence upon the employer having the right to control his actions at the time the negligent act occurs. The theoretical basis for this test is probably the desire to impose the liability upon the employer who was in the best position to prevent the injury. Although this may be considered inconsistent with the liability-without-fault nature of respondeat superior, the con trol test has received widespread approval from the courts.” 50 N.W.2d at 620 .”
2 later decisions 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.