Evans v. Hook’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Evans v. Bf Perkins Company a Division of Standex International Corporation (1999), Nichols v. VVKR, INC. (1991)
3 federal appellate · 37 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 Feitig v. Chalkley · Anderson v. Thorington Construction Co. · Rea, Administratrix v. Ford · Floyd v. Mitchell · Smith v. Horn
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of the § 65.2-302 and related provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act is to bring within the operation of the Act all persons engaged in the work that is part of the trade, business, or occupation of the party who undertakes as owner or who contracts as contractor to perform the work, and to make liable to every employee engaged in the work every such owner, contractor, or subcontractor above such employee.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. Alger · Stephen v. Dickens“Evans fails to recognize that before an employee can claim the benefits of the act, or be subject to its restrictions, he must be considered an employee under its terms. The Intermodal plaintiff, an independent contractor vis-a-vis the defendant, was simply not an employee under the act and, therefore, was not subject to its limitations in bringing his common-law action, even though the defendant was not a stranger to the employment. On the other hand, the plaintiff in Lucas was an employee within the meaning of the act, and the defendant, who was not a stranger to the plaintiffs employment, was either a fellow-employee or an independent contractor entitled to statutory immunity from the injured employee’s common-law action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We said that it did not matter whether the defendant ‘was an independent contractor or a fellow-servant of the plaintiff_ The purpose of the [Act] is to limit recovery to all persons engaged in the business of the employer to compensation under the Act and to deny an injured person the right of recovery against any other person unless he is a stranger to the business.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.