Eule v. Eule Motor Sales’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably Immer v. Risko (1970), Berko v. Freda (1983)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 state decisions
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 United States v. Gilman · Schubert v. August Schubert Wagon Co. · Koplik v. C. P. Trucking Corp. · Ruzicka v. Rager · Maryland Casualty Co. v. New Jersey Manufacturers Casualty Insurance
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * Reflecting the commonly-held view that the enterprise should be the final repository of the inevitable risk of loss, the Legislature recently provided that an employee shall not be liable for negligent injury of a co-employee entitled to workmen's compensation benefits, L. 1961, c. 2, amending R.S. 34:15-8. * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * [A] husband’s negligent injury of his wife constitutes a wrong, and the barrier to an action by her against him is solely an immunity personal to him. This distinction between the existence of a wrong and the husband’s private immunity from suit was repeated in Koplik, supra. [Koplik v. C. P. Trucking Corp.] where the court said (27 N. J. [1] at p. 7) “our statute simply disables or incapacitates the spouse possessing the cause of action from suing the tortfeasor mate.” The employer, the Hudson opinion continued, is liable because “The master is liable for the servant’s act as though for his own,” citing the maxim, “He who acts through another acts by himself” (123 N. J. L., at pp. 254-255). Thus, the employer is directly chargeable as if he were the immediate actor and may not escape because his employee happened to be the husband of the victim. [at 539]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]very partner is an agent of the partnership for the purpose of its business, and the act of every partner ... binds the partnership, unless the partner so acting has in fact no authority to act for the partnership in the particular matter.”
2 later decisions 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.