Labee v. Sultan Logging Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1908
Citation profile
2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 1951
2 district · 14 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 Anderson v. McCarthy Dry Goods Co. · LaBee v. Sultan Logging Co.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where the facts of the case are such as to eliminate blame on the part of the servant, or his fellow servants, but show prima facie neglect on the part of some one, we think the master should be put to his proofs to show.that the blame is not his, just the same as he would be were the. injury to a stranger. Such a rule casts the burden upon the person who is in a position to know the facts, and who can make the proofs by direct and positive evidence, while the rule contended for by the appellant compels the resort to indirect and circumstantial evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The weight of authority seems to support counsel’s contention in so far as they contend that the doctrine is not applicable to cases between master and servant. The Federal cases uniformly so hold, and in the majority of the states the same rule obtains. See, Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Dixon, 139 Fed. 737 , and the cases there collected. But the question being a new one in this state we have felt ourselves at liberty to inquire into the reasons for the rule, and to discard it if we found the reasons given to maintain it unsatisfactory.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““These latter inquiries are not material to the question in hand. They are cited to show that a holding that denies to a servant, simply because he is a servant, the benefit of the rule of res ipsa loquitur in a proper case, is unreasonable and unjust, and is required by no rule of public policy. We see no reason to change our former holding . . . ””
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.