Collins v. American Buslines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1993 · most notably Huron Portland Cement Company v. City of Detroit Michigan (1960), Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry (1963)
27 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 Southern Pac Co v. State of Arizona Sullivan · New York Central Railroad v. Winfield · Carroll v. Lanza · Carter v. United States
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 23-902, subsec. A states, in part: “Employers subject to chapter “A. Employers subject to the provisions of this chapter are * * * every person who has in his employ three or more workmen or operatives regularly employed in the same business or establishment under contract of hire, * * *. For the purposes of this section ‘regularly employed’ includes all employments, whether continuous throughout the year, or for only a portion of the year, in the usual trade, business, profession or occupation of an employer.” “23-903. Application of chapter to persons engaged in interstate commerce; limitation “The provisions of this chapter shall apply to employers and their employees engaged in intrastate and also in interstate and foreign commerce for whom a rule of liability or method of compensation has been or may be established by the United States only to the extent that their mutual connection with intrastate work is clearly separate and distinguishable from interstate or foreign commerce.” • • ■ “§ 23-904. Effect of injury without the state; right to compensation of out-of-state employee injured within state “A. If a workman who has been hired' or is regularly employed in this state receives a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of such employment, he shall be entitled to compensation according to the law of this state even though the injury was received without the state. “B. If a workman who has been hired without this state is injured while engaged in”
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.