United Eastern Mining Co. v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We are satisfied ‘about,’ in the contest in which, it is used, was intended to mean work of the general character done or carried on in the danger zone incident to operating a mine. It is a broader word than ‘in,’ but not broad enougii to reach work unrelated to mining in prosimity or character. It covers work that subjects the workmen to the dangers incident to a mine, but not work away from the mine and any of the dangers or hazards incident thereto. It is obvious that the work plaintiff was engaged in at the time he was hurt did not bring him into the range of any of the peculiar dangers and hazards incident to operating a mine, and that therefore he is not entitled to recover in this action.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moreno v. Moore

2. ““Hazardous occupations enumerated. The occupations hereby declared and determined to be hazardous within the meaning of this article are as follows: ... 8. All work in or about quarries, open pits, open cuts, mines, ore reduction works and smelters. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moreno v. Moore