Evans v. Morsell’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably Di Cosala v. Kay (1982), Henley v. Prince George's County (1986)
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Beahm v. Shortall · Kendall v. Gore Properties, Inc. · Levine v. Rendler · Curley v. General Valet Service, Inc. · McCrink v. City of New York
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[WJhen one has completed a criminal sentence or has been paroled, the employer to some extent is entitled to rely upon the determination of the government’s criminal justice system that the individual is ready to again become an active member of society.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an employer owes a duty to its employees to use “reasonable care and caution in the selection of competent fellow servants, and in the retention in his service of none but those who are,” and that, if the employer fails in that duty and “an injury is occasioned by the negligence of an incompetent or careless servant,” the employer is liable to the injured, employee “not for the mere negligent act or omission of the incompetent or careless servant, but for his own negligence in not discharging his own duty towards the injured servant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. State““One dealing with the public is bound to use reasonable care to select employees competent and fit for the work assigned to them and to refrain from retaining the services of an unfit employee. When an employer neglects this duty and as a result injury is occasioned to a third person, the employer may be liable even though the injury was brought about by the willful act of the employee beyond the scope of his employment.””
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.