Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 51 WASH 477 - Kendall v. Johnson

Kendall v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1909

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
3
states following
October 1981
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 1981 · most notably 96 Wash. 2d 274 - Tauscher v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co. (1981), Vancouver National Bank v. Katz (1927)

2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

100190919101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 McCafferty v. . S.D. P.M.R.R. Co. · Cuff v. Newark & New York Railroad · French v. . Vix · Blumb v. City of Kansas · Engler v. City of Seattle

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

  1. ““The appellant was not a party to the contract between the respondent and the firm of Fred Johnson & Co., and never assented to the provisions of that contract. In an action between him and either of the contracting parties he is at liberty to show the true relations subsisting between them, regardless of the relationship which they may have assumed on paper. In other words, it was clearly competent for the appellant to show by oral testimony that the relation of master and servant subsisted between the respondent and the firm of Fred Johnson & Co., and that the respondent had the direction and charge of the blasting which resulted in his injury.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The work of blasting may or may not fall within the exceptions to the general rule, according to the particular circumstances of the individual case, but under the facts here presented, where the parties were employed to construct a railroad grade in the Cascade mountains far removed from any human habitation, we think the general rule of nonliability applies.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.