Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 396 F.2d 89 - General Electric Company and Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Cuban American Nickel Company

General Electric Company and Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Cuban American Nickel Company’s Empirical Analysis

396 F.2d 89 · 1968

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
4
states following
December 1999
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently December 1999 · most notably Gorsalitz v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. (1970), Tri-State Oil Tool Industries, Inc. v. Delta Marine Drilling Co. (1969)

31 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions

3701968197019801990decided

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 Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · Crumady v. the Joachim Hendrik Fisser · Harris v. United States · Wisconsin v. Illinois · Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc.

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

  1. “[p]erhaps the most evenly-balanced controversy in all of compensation law,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When the employer’s relation to the third party is that of a contractor doing work for the third party, there may be an implied obligation to perform the work with due care. If, by failing to use such care, the employer causes an accident injuring his own employee, it may be said that the employer has simultaneously breached two duties of care. The one is toward the employee, and it is for this breach that compensation bars any common-law remedy. The other is toward the third party contractee, and among the damages flowing from the breach of this separate duty are any damages the third party may be forced to pay the employee because of their relation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"C. Louisiana courts have not yet directly passed upon the applicability of the Ryan doctrine. Kiefer, The Right of a Third Party to Contribution or Indemnity from a Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Employer, 38 Tulane L.Rev. 536, 543 (1964). Our examination of Louisiana law, however, leads us to conclude that Louisiana courts would in similar cases refuse to imply contractual indemnity." (Emphasis added.)”
    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.