Mower v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2002 · most notably 82 Ill. 2d 415 - Lynch v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COLLINSVILLE COMMUNITY UNIT DIST. (1980), 167 Ill. 2d 466 - Snyder v. Curran Township (1995)
6 federal appellate · 49 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 Bartolucci v. Falleti · Minear v. State Board of Agriculture · Jeneary v. Chicago & Interurban Traction Co. · Streeter v. Humrichouse · People ex rel. Munson v. Bartels
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the instant case the evidence reveals that defendant was employed by the State Highway Department, that he was assigned by his superiors to be "maintenance man" on a designated strip of some 21 miles of highway. He was assigned other men as helpers and provided with equipment including the snow plow, with which to perform his various duties. He was, in general, left to his own judgment as to when and where he should perform his duties in his assigned territory and as to the manner in which he would use the State-owned equipment furnished him. Under such circumstances his duties were not within the definition of "ministerial" as announced in the Bartels case [ People v. Bartels, 138 Ill. 322 , 27 N.E. 1091 (1891)]. Defendant is conceded to be the agent of the State and there is no contention that the removing of the snow from the public highway at the place and time of the collision was not within the duties with which defendant was charged. The removal of snow and ice from one of the main traveled highways is absolutely essential to the welfare and safety of the traveling public. There are few, if any, functions of public responsibility which require more prompt and effective action on the part of those charged with such duty. That the removal of such snow and ice is a governmental as distinguished from a ministerial function appears as a reasonable proposition when circumscribed by conditions necessitating the overcoming of the hazard of snow and ice, with its attending d”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grimmett v. Digby“on a designated strip of some 21 miles of highway. He was assigned other men as helpers and provided with equipment including the snow plow, with which to perform his various duties. He was, in general, left to his own judgment as to when and where he should perform his duties in his assigned territory and as to the manner in which he would use the State-owned equipment furnished him. Under such circumstances his duties were not within the definition of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grimmett v. Digby“all its reasonable inferences, taken in the aspect most favorable to the contestant, may be said to be sufficient in law to support the cause of action.”
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.