Loud v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 19 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. “' “The duty of the court hearing the motion for summary judgment is to determine if there are any issues of fact to be tried, and not to weigh the evidence or determine its credibility, * * *. ‘The underlying purpose of Rule * * * was elimination of patently unmeritorious claims or untenable defenses; not being intended to deprive litigants of their right to a full hearing on the merits of any real issue of fact.’ The burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of any material fact is upon the movant, and ‘All doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact must be resolved against the party moving for a summary judgment.’ * * '[The Court] accepts as true all evidence of the party opposing the motion which tends ‘ to support such party’s contention, and gives him the benefit of every reasonable inference which properly can be drawn in favor of his position.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Torres v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. · Irwin v. Belk

2. ““From the above quotations it will be observed that appellant testified that Arthur gave him specific instructions to be present at a definite time to do a specific thing: help move the motor. Appellant did not know how heavy the motor was, he had never before lifted or even seen one like it; there was no one else near except the other man whose status as a fellow employee, or a stranger, is not determined; Arthur, the building superintendent, did not show up at the appointed time, nor did he send anybody to help appellant, unless possibly it was the other man in the picture. “We think the failure of Arthur to be present at the appointed place and hour, or at least his failure to send some one or more persons to assist appellant, raises a fact question as to negligence. It may be that at a trial on the merits such failure can satisfactorily be explained. But we believe the record in its present state would support a finding in behalf of appellant at a trial on the merits of negligence on the part of appellees which proximately caused whatever injuries appellant may have. sustained on the occasion in question. “Appellees cite us the case of Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Coker, 1947, 146 Tex. 190 , 204 S.W.2d 977 , in which it is held that an employer is not liable if the employee is injured in performing work which he undertook voluntarily without any instructions from his supe riors; or if the employee does the work alone without seeking assistance; and further, that an empl”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Holiday Lodge Nursing Home, Inc. v. Huffman