Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 258 PA 473 - Marsh v. Groner

Marsh v. Groner’s Empirical Analysis

1917

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
15
states following
August 2012
most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Callihan v. Montgomery (1922), Blake v. Wilson (1920)

54 state decisions — followed in 15 states

18019171920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “. . When one’s business is the subject of common speech, no one can be in doubt as to the reference. It would be a very exceptional person — we do not know how to otherwise describe him — who would not understand that the reference is to the habitual or regular occupation that the party was engaged in with a view to winning a livelihood or some gain. These objects are necessarily implied when one’s business is spoken of. Eliminate them, livelihood and gain, and it is no longer business, but amusement, which no one ever confounds with business. What we have said as to the popular understanding of the word business is just what Webster defines it, ‘ Some particular occupation or employment habitually engaged in for livelihood or gain.’ ” (Italics ours.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “regular course of the business of the employer.”
    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.