Proctor v. Colonial Refrigerated Transportation, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
494 F.2d 89 · 1974
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Carroll v. State (1975), 397 Ill. App. 3d 437 - U.S. Bank v. Lindsey (2009)
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 49 U.S.C. § 304
Relies on Richardson v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc. · American Trucking Ass'ns v. United States Eastern Motor Exp · Community Counselling Service, Inc. v. Reilly · Krizak v. W. C. Brooks & Sons, 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“there are no controverted issues of fact upon which reasonable men could differ.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““the intent [of the regulations] was to make sure that licensed carriers would be responsible in fact, as well as in law, for ... the supervision of borrowed drivers.” The statute and regulatory pattern clearly eliminates the independent contractor concept from such lease arrangements and casts upon [the carrier-lessee] full responsibility for the negligence of [the driver] of the leased equipment. Any language to the contrary in the lease agreement would be violative of the spirit and letter of the federal regulations and therefore unenforceable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“These [ICC] regulations and the statute under which they were promulgated require and provide that under such lease arrangements, the lessee-carriers “will have full direction and control of such [leased] vehicles and will be fully responsible for the operation thereof ... as if they were the owners of such vehicles....” These regulations were promulgated by the Commission to correct widespread abuses incident to the use of leased equipment by the carriers, and “the intent [of the regulations] was to make sure that licensed carriers would be responsible in fact, as well as in law, for the ... supervision of borrowed drivers.” The statute and regulatory pattern clearly eliminate the independent contractor concept from such lease arrangements and casts upon [the lessee-carrier] full responsibility for the negligence of [the lessor-contractor] as driver of the leased equipment. Any language to the contrary in the lease agreement would be violative of the spirit and letter of the federal regulations and therefore unenforceable.”
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.