James M. Walker v. United States Gypsum Company, and Third-Party and Coley & Peterson, Incorporated, Third-Party’s Empirical Analysis
270 F.2d 857 · 1959
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Phillips Oil Co. v. OKC Corp. (1987), Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc. v. McReynolds (1976)
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Crowell v. Benson · Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. · Gibbs v. Buck · KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[T]he choice between permissible inferences is for the trier of facts.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . peculiarly appropriate for summary judgment when there is no genuinely disputed issue of fact. The parties should not be put to a long and expensive trial only to have the court discover at the end that the case should have been brought in another tribunal. Nor should the parties and the public suffer delay and the dislo cation which necessarily follow if crowded jury trial dockets are "burdened with cases in which there is no triable issue. Rule 56, Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. is designed to insure that they need not.” At page 860.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When any person ... referred to as ‘owner,’ undertakes to perform or execute any work which is a part of his trade, business or occupation and contracts with any other person ... (referred to as ‘subcontractor’) for the execution or performance by or under such subcontractor of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by such owner, the owner shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the work any compensation under this Title which he would have been liable to pay if the workman had been immediately employed by him.”
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.