New York Co v. Bezue’s Empirical Analysis
284 U.S. 415 · 1932
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 5 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 161 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2002 · most notably Schad v. Arizona (1991), McLeod v. Threlkeld (1943)
49 federal appellate · 5 district · 81 state decisions — followed in 20 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 New York Central Railroad Company v. Sarah White · Chicago Burlington Quincy Railroad Company v. Margaret Harrington · Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad · Delaware Lackawanna Western Railroad Company v. Matt Yurkonis · Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Winters
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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The criterion of applicability of the statute is the employee’s occupation at the time of his injury in interstate transportation or work so closely related thereto as to be practically a part of it.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The state court held that the terminal facilities in which respondent worked constitute a part of the railroad’s system necessary to the operation of the road and to the conduct of interstate commerce; that the fact that some work is there done on locomotives engaged in intrastate commerce does not deprive the establishment of its character as an essential instrumentality of interstate commerce; that the respondent was engaged in a ‘plant service,’ and worked indiscriminately upon engines engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce. The conclusion was that the nature and purpose of the plant warranted characterization of all respondent’s work, of whatever náture, as in interstate commerce. “The test thus applied is broader than our decisions justify. All work performed in railroad employment may, in a sense, be said to be necessary to the operation of the road. The business could not be conducted without repair shop employees, clerks, janitors, mechanics, and those who operate all manner of appliances not directly or intimately concerned with interstate transportation as such, or with facilities actually used therein. .But we have held that the mere fact of empolyment does not bring such employees within the act.””
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.