Bell v. O'Hearne’s Empirical Analysis
284 F.2d 777 · 1960
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 Voris v. Eikel · Chapman v. Hoage · Voris v. Gulf-Tide Stevedores, Inc. · Marlin v. Cardillo · Branham v. Terminal Shipping Co.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the absence of language plainly-demanding it, a construction is not to be favored which visits a forfeiture on the employee or his dependent and gives a windfall to the insurance carrier. ‘This Act must be liberally construed in conformance with its purpose, and in a way which avoids harsh and incongruous results. * * * ’ ” Bell v. O’Hearne, 284 F.2d 777 (1960).”
2 later decisions 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.