Doleman v. Levine’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 9 district · 20 state decisions

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

1. ““A different question is presented where the dependent who has elected to receive compensation is entitled to only a partial interest in the amount to be recovered for the death. Such is the case here. For the widow alone has elected to take compensation, and under the Wrongful Death Act, § 3, * * * the proceeds of the recovery are required to be distributed among the next of kin, which includes both the widow and the father, where the decedent leaves no surviving child. Title 29, D.C.Code, §§ 284, 285, 288. “The right of the employer to reimbursement from the recovery is derived from his subrogation, under section 33(b) of the Compensation Act, to the rights of the dependent widow to whom he is bound to pay compensation. Apart from statute, the indemnitor’s right by subrogation to stand in the place of his in-demnitee, who is entitled to a part only of the proceeds of a single cause of action, does not carry with it any authority to maintain the action in his own name. See Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 277, 286 , 5 L.Ed. 87 ; Shankland v. Washington, 5 Pet. 390 , 8 L.Ed. 166 ; Vinal v. West Virginia Oil & Oil Land Co., 110 U.S. 215 , 4 S.Ct. 4 , 28 L.Ed. 124 . He is in the position of a partial assignee of the chose in action, and as such is entitled to his share of the proceeds of the action when recovered and may secure their recovery by resort to equity, in a suit joining proper parties, to compel action by the legal owner and appropriate distribution of the proceeds. See”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City Stores Co. v. Shull · Personius v. Asbury Transportation Co.

2. ““Acceptance of such compensation under an award in a compensation order filed by the deputy commissioner, shall operate as an assignment to the employer of all right of the person entitled to compensation to recover damages against such third person, unless such person shall commence an action against such third person within six months after such award.” (emphasis added)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City Stores Co. v. Shull · Burnside Shipping Co. v. Federal Marine Terminals

3. ““A like construction has been given to the similar, but not identical, compensation statute of New York. If the persons receiving compensation do not include all of the next of kin who are beneficiaries under the Wrongful Death Act, the employer or insurance carrier must prosecute his claim to share in the proceeds through the administrator as statutory trustee, and may compromise or release his own interest, but no other. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Graham & Norton Co., 254 N.Y. 50, 53 , 171 N.E. 903 ; Zirpola v. Casselman, Inc., 237 N.Y. 367, 375 , 143 N.E. 222 . But if all of the next of kin entitled to receive the benefit of the recovery for wrongful death elect to receive compensation, the employer or insurance carrier may maintain the action against the wrongdoer. See Zirpola v. Casselman, Inc., supra, 237 N.Y. [at page] 373, 143 N.E. 222 ; Travelers Insurance Co. v. [Louis] Padula Co., 224 N.Y. 397 , 121 N.E. 348 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 111 F. Supp. 393 - Komlos v. Compagnie Nationale Air France