39 F. Supp. 22 - Hetrick v. Reading Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2007 · most notably Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo (1979), United States v. Price (1961)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 1 · 45 U.S.C. § 228A · 45 U.S.C. § 261 · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 55 (Federal Employers' Liability Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 58 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on McCarthy v. Palmer · McCarthy v. Palmer
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The objects of the two pieces of legislation are entirely foreign to each other, and we are of the view that there never was a legislative intent that a jury . . . was to draw into its calculations the annuities provided for by the Retirement Act so that payments made by the employer under the latter legislation would be returned to it. . . . [W]e do not feel that the annuity was ever intended to restore injured employees to a theoretical status quo, but on the contrary was intended to make secure in society those employees suffering injury after thirty years of service, or perhaps because of thirty years of service. Recovery under [the FELA] is beside the point, because that is an attempted restorative alone."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * That in any action brought against any such common carrier under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this chapter, such common carrier may set off therein any sum it has contributed or paid to any insurance, relief benefit, or indemnity that may have been paid to the injured employee or the person entitled thereto on account of the injury or death for which said action was brought.” (Italics added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"However, the [Railroad Retirement] fund is created by equal contributions from the employee and employer. For that reason it cannot be said that the defendant will be paying twice . . . for the same injury. Furthermore, we do not think that an annuity based upon total and permanent disability, etc., was ever intended as compensation, because the right to the fund does not depend *Page 543 upon the ordinary rules of evidence. In short, the occurrence of the disability in such a case is simply the event upon which the right to the annuity accrues."”
1 later decision 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.