Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 N.J. Super. 525 - White v. Sindlinger

30 N.J. Super. 525 - White v. Sindlinger’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
9
states following
December 1986
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 1986

19 state decisions

701954196019701980decided

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 Beem v. H. D. Lee Mercantile Co. · Spence v. Maier · Ohmen v. Adams Brothers · Webb v. North Side Amusement Co. · Dooley v. Smith's Transfer 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Appellant admits the general rule but claims it does not apply here because there was an abandonment of the employment as a matter of time on the occasion of the fatal occurrence. Assuming there was a deviation in point of time, there is no question that such deviation had terminated, because decedent was on the road home when his death took place, proceeding along the usual route leading from the place where he customarily left Mayer, in Lakewood, to the Allenwood residence.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[Tjhere is no question that such deviation had terminated, because decedent was on the road home when his death took place, proceeding along the usual route leading from the place where he customarily left Mayer * * * to the Allenwood residence. * * * “Petitioner here sustained the burden of proof required in compensation cases; namely, that her husband was employed by respondent, that the truck was furnished him for the convenience and purposes of the employer; that it was decedent’s duty to take his assistant, Mayer, home to Lakewood, that he did so and then met death as a result of the accident while following the usual highway route from Lakewood to his home. The nature of the employee’s duties exposed him to the highway danger; the accident was directly attributed to a risk of the highway to which the employment exposed him and the injuries, and death followed as a rational sequence from a risk connected with the employment.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “started on his way home from Lakewood and had the accident he was back in the course 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.