Heaton v. Ferrell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * An injury arises out of the employment when there is a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury, and in the course of the employment when it occurs within the period of employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be, and while reasonably is fulfilling the duties of his employment or is engaged in doing something incidental thereto. But, recognizing the difficulty often encountered in applying broad legal principles to specific factual situations, our courts as frequently have said that no all-embracing definition of the phrase ‘arising out of and in the course of his employment’ has yet been framed, and have added the common-sense admonition that every case involving the quoted phrase should be decided upon its own particular facts and circumstances and not by formula. However, it may be helpful in consideration of the instant case to bear in mind that, before an injury may be said to arise out of the employment, it must have been a rational consequence of some hazard connected with the employment; that, generally speaking, the scope of the contract of employment furnishes the determinative test as to whether or not the accident is compensable as ‘arising out of and in the course of * * * employment’; and that cases involving construction and application of the quoted phrase usually have turned upon the point whether, under the particular circumstances of each such case, the injury ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Travelers Insurance Co. v. Majersky

2. ““The general rule is that an injury sustained by an employee while going or coming from his work does not arise out of and in the course of employment and is not compensable; and where, as here, an employee has a definite place of work and the time of work does not include his lunch hour, ‘the trip away from and back to the premises for the purpose of getting lunch is indistinguishable in principle from the trip at the beginning and end of the work day, and should be governed by the same rules and exceptions’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cowick v. Gibbs Beauty Supplies