Cummer Mfg. Co. v. Copeland’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 2007
2 federal appellate · 2 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 Carter v. Clark & Boice Lumber Co. · Moore Savage v. Kopplin · 55 Tex. Civ. App. 492 - Ripy v. Less · 55 Tex. Civ. App. 455 - Nail v. First National Bank of Chickasha · Broocks v. Moss
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It appears from the record without contradiction that defendant Cummer Manufacturing Company, through its agents, directed the parties who cut the timber for it where to cut and that they cut no timber except such as they were directed to cut by the defendant Cummer Manufacturing Company. Under such circumstances as these, Cummer Manufacturing Company would be liable even though the parties who cut the timber were independent contractors.”
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.