Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 316 MASS 732 - Roney's Case

Roney's Case’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
October 2000
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently October 2000 · most notably Druzik v. Board of Health of Haverhill (1949), Moore's Case (1953)

41 state decisions

1401944195019601970198019902000decided

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 McNicol's Case · Adamaitis v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · Leshefsky v. American EmPloyers' Insurance · Royal Paper Box Co. v. Munro & Church Co. · Di Clavio's Case

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

  1. ““Nevertheless, a case ordinarily will not be remanded to the reviewing board for the finding of subsidiary facts if the evidence would not warrant a finding contrary to the general finding of the reviewing board. * * * This is not on the ground that it was not the duty of the reviewing board to make findings of subsidiary facts, but is rather on the ground that the rights of the parties were not jeopardized by the failure to make such findings * * *, and that it is apparent that such findings would serve no useful purpose, since in no event could such findings, warranted by the evidence, lead to a result contrary to the general finding of the reviewing board.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “We conclude, however, upon an examination of the evidence reported, that this evidence did not warrant a finding contrary to the general finding of the reviewing board. There was no evidence that the claimant was a dependent of the employee unless she was a member of his family. And the evidence did not warrant a finding that she was a member of his family.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “whether the decision of the reviewing board was based upon the failure of the claimant to prove subsidiary facts or upon a ruling of law as to the effect of subsidiary facts proved but not expressly found.”
    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.