Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 293 S.W.2d 136 - Miceli v. Williams

Miceli v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
states following
October 2005
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2005

4 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

80195619601970198019902000decided

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 Daily v. Maxwell · Guthrie v. Holmes · Fulton v. City of Lockwood · Foster v. Campbell · Scott v. Kempland

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

  1. “There was no testimony given or evidence produced that even remotely touched upon the terms and conditions under which Cheeks was employed by and or working for Williams [at the time of the accident]. Consequently, there is no basis which would warrant a finding that the master was obligated to furnish his servant with food for the noonday meal, and in order that such obligation could be discharged, agreed to furnish a motor vehicle as was the situation in Wrightsman Glidewell, 210 Mo.App. 367 , 239 S.W. 574 . Neither is there any evidentiary basis justifying a finding that the master had agreed to furnish his servant a motor vehicle to enable the latter, at his expense, to secure his food, thereby shortening the time the servant was away from his work and correspondingly lengthening the time of service for the master. Chambers v. Kennedy, Mo.Sup. 274 S.W. 726 .”
    1 later decision 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.