Hopson v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

89 federal appellate · 18 district · 31 state decisions

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

1. “for the injuries negligently inflicted on its employees by its 'officers, agents, or employees.'”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Craig v. Atlantic Richfield Co. · Randle v. Crosby Tugs, L. L.C.

2. ““In the present case the respondent [Missouri Pacific] rather that doing the necessary switching incident to its business in the Houston Terminal area, arranged that the Belt Railway should supply the crews and equipment to perform this operation on its behalf. But the evidence clearly es tablishes that the respondent’s trains, when under the control of the Belt Railway’s switching crews, were being handled to further the task of the respondent’s enterprise. While engaged in switching and handling respondent’s cars and trains about the terminal area, the Belt Railway employees on the job were, for purposes of the FELA, as much a part of the respondent’s total enterprise as was the petitioner while engaged in his regular work on the respondent’s car. “It is manifest that the corporate autonomy of the Belt Railway, and its freedom from detailed supervision of its operations by respondent, are irrelevant inasmuch as the switching crew of the Belt Railway Company at the moment of the collision in the station was engaged in furthering the operational activities of respondent. We therefore hold that when a railroad employee’s injury is caused in whole or in part by the fault of others performing, under contract, operational activities of his employer, such others are ‘agents’ of the employer within the meaning of § 1 of FELA.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tim v. American President Lines, Ltd. · Craig v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

3. “"And it was respondent [employer] — not the seamen — which selected, as it had done many times before, the taxi service. Respondent— the law says — should bear the responsibility tor the negligence of the driver which it chose.” 383 U.S. at 264 , 86 S.Ct. at 766 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tim v. American President Lines, Ltd. · 71 Wash. 2d 404 - Ugolini v. States Marine Lines