Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 330 Mass. 1 - Moore's Case

Moore's Case’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
12
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Wooten v. Roden (1954), Sica v. Retail Credit Co. (1967)

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 64 state decisions — followed in 12 states

2001953196019701980199020002010decided

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 Caswell's Case · Souza's Case · Matter of Wilson v. General Motors Corp. · Stakonis v. United Advertising Corporation · Murphy v. Miettinen

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

  1. “which may be resorted to in determining whether the employment and the recreation are related with sufficient closeness to warrant an award.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Generally, injuries suffered by an employee while watching, participating in, or going to or coming from recreational activities sponsored in whole or in part by the employer, are not compensable, since such injuries are usually sustained while the employee is not performing any • duty for which he had been either expressly or impliedly employed. In other words the injuries cannot ordinarily be said to have resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. “A distinction is made, however, in those cases where the recreation which caused the injury, either directly or indirectly, was sponsored by the employer as a matter of business and not because of altruistic motives. That is, the employer exercised control or domination over the recreation for the purpose of developing better service and greater efficiency among the employees, thereby reaping a direct business benefit from the recreation sponsored.” 6 Schneider, Workmen’s Compensation 519.”
    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.