Silvia v. Scotten’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 7 district · 21 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When the purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is borne in mind it would be highly unreasonable to assume that in its enactment the Legislature intended to save a class of wrongdoers who are in no wise related to the compensation scheme from the liability which the law had theretofore imposed upon them. The Workmen’s Compensation Act concerns only employer and employee and is designed to afford a fair and equitable adjustment of their mutual rights and obligations, primarily for the benefit of the employee. A stranger to the employment is outside of the act’s contemplation, and his liabilities are not intended by the act to be disturbed. The only particular in which the act deals with him appears in section 131, and here there is no attempt to destroy his liability, the sole purpose of the section being to make an alteration in the theretofore existing law in respect to parties plaintiff against him in case compensation has been agreed upon.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ierardi v. Farmers Trust Co. of Newark

2. ““* * * ‘the employer by succession — ipso facto et eo instanti —becomes the owner of the right against the wrongdoer.’ He may assert it or not as he sees fit. If perchance the claim for damages against the third person is far in excess of the amount of compensation allowed under the Compensation Act, the employee, or his dependents to whom such excess belongs in the event that the employer collects it, have no way of collecting it except as the interest or grace of the employer may prompt him to act. In this respect they are at his mercy. The risk that he will not act to collect full damages from the person liable is a hazard they take in electing to proceed under the Compensation Act. This may not be fair and just to the employee and his dependents. Indeed it would appear to us not to be. But it is the result which ■ the language of the act clearly indicates as the legislative intent, and we have no choice but to observe it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Frank C. Sparks Co. v. Huber Baking Co.

3. ““In order to escape the conclusion that the statute means to subrogate the employer to the rights of ‘dependents’ (which term includes the widow) and thus to avoid the logical consequences flowing therefrom, the plaintiff in error argues that the word ‘dependents’ whenever it appears in the section must be rejected as surplusage. We do not feel warranted, however, in dealing so freely with the language of the Legislature. It must be assumed that the word was employed to express a purpose, and being able as we are to discover a rational purpose in its use, we are not at liberty to strike the word from its context.” ,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Foote