O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
340 U.S. 504 · 1951
Citation profile
739 federal appellate · 93 district · 153 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,349 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Dalehite v. United States (1953), Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission (1966)
739 federal appellate · 93 district · 153 state decisions — followed in 27 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedBrown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc. v. O'Leary (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Cardillo US v. Liberty Mut Ins Co · Claim of Waters v. William J. Taylor Co. · Matter of Babington v. Yellow Taxi Corp.
Cited together with Cardillo US v. Liberty Mut Ins Co · O'Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc. · Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Del Vecchio v. Bowers · Voris v. Eikel
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 1,349 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“necessary that the employee be engaged at the time of the injury in activity of benefit to his employer. All that is required is that the 'obligations or conditions' of employment create the 'zone of special danger' out of which the injury arose.”
38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the findings are to be accepted unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(That Matthew Gee) sustained personal injury on March 5, 1957, that resulted in his death on October 4, 1957. * * * “The employee’s death was the result of the natural and unavoidable progression of the injury and the conditions and the ailments that were proximately caused, aggravated or accelerated by the employment. The injury and death arose out of and in the course of the employment. The chain of causation proceeded in a logical and orderly fashion and was direct and continuous from the date of injury to and including the day of death. “As a result of the injury the employee was under medical treatment and was wholly disabled from March 6, 1957, to October 3, 1957 * * (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.