Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 Sickels 396 - Marsh v. . Chickering

Marsh v. . Chickering’s Empirical Analysis

1886

Citation profile

138
cited by 138 later decisions
21
states following
January 1951
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 133 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 138 later decisions — most recently January 1951 · most notably Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Locke (1887), Cahill v. . Hilton (1887)

5 federal appellate · 133 state decisions — followed in 21 states

46018861890190019101920193019401950decided

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 Laning v. . N.Y.C.R.R. Co. · Burke v. . Witherbee · Powers v. . N.Y., L.E. W.R.R. 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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““As a general rule, it is to be supposed that the master who employs a servant has a better and more comprehensive knowledge as to the machinery and materials to be used than the employe who has claims upon his-protection against the use oí defective or improper materials or appliances while engaged in the performance of the service required of him. The rule-stated, however, is not applicable in ail cases; and where the servant has equal knowledge with the master as to the machinery used, or the means employed in the performance of the work devolving upon him, and a full knowledge of existing defects, it does not necessarily follow that the master is liable for injuries sustained by reason of the use thereof.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It might, perhaps, have been more perfect if it had had hooks and spikes, but this improvement was not absolutely essential to relieve the defendants from liability. It was enough that it was reasonably safe and suitable within the rule cited, and under such circumstances an action will not lie.””
    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.