Colorado Milling & Elevator Co. v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions

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

1. ““Counsel for appellant concede that an employee who survives an injury can still avail himself of his common-law remedy, notwithstanding the statute of 1893, but contend that the same rule does not apply to one whose right of action is given by the statute of 1877. We cannot see any reason for this distinction, or perceive why the right of action created by the statute is abrogated by the subsequent act, any more than one that existed at common law, since no such intention is indicated in terms or by implication. It is well settled that a statute providing a new remedy for an existing right does not take away a pre-existing remedy without express words or necessary implication. (23 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 393, and cases cited.) The same rule of construction is applied to statutes in derogation of existing statutes as applies to those in derogation of common law, and the same presumption obtains that no change is intended, unless the later statute is clear and explicit to that effect. (Suth. St. Con., sec. 139.) The statute of 1893, as we have before stated, does not attempt in any manner to repeal, modify, 'or restrict any of the provisions of the statute of 1877, nor to change or abridge any right or remedy thereby given. It merely provides that the parties who were entitled by law to sue in case the injury results in death shall have the right of compensation and remedy that it gives to the employee.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chiara v. Stewart Mining Co.

2. ““Where, after the passage of this act, personal injury is caused to an em-ployé, who is himself in the exercise of due care and diligence at the time; “(1) By reason of any defect in the condition of the ways, works or machinery connected with or used in the business of the employer, which arose from or had not been discovered or remedied owing to the negligence of the employer, or of any person in the service of the employer, and intrusted by him with the duty of seeing that the ways, works and machinery were in proper condition; or “(2) By reason of the negligence of any person in the'service of the employer, intrusted with exercising superintendence whose sole or principal duty is that of superintendence; “(3) By reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who has the charge or control of any switch, signal, locomotive engine or train upon a railroad. “The employé, or in casé the injury results in death the parties entitled by law to sue and recover for such damages shall have the same right of compensation and remedy against the employer, as if the employé had not been an employé or in the service of the employer or engaged in his or its work.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arzuaga v. Ortiz

3. ““But it would not need the aid of previous exposition to show that the main purpose of the statute, as the title intimates, is to -extend the liability of employers in favor of employés, that it does not attempt to codify the whole law upon the subject, and that it leaves open some common-law defenses and some common-law liabilities. In view of these general considerations, we are to construe the statute liberally in favor of employes, and we ought to be slow to conclude that Indirectly, and without express words to that effect, it has limited the workman’s common-law rights most materially in respect to the conditions and time of bringing an action, and the amount which he can recover””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arzuaga v. Ortiz