Railco Multi-Construction Co. v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Harris v. District of Columbia Office of Worker's Compensation (1995), Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (1996)
6 federal appellate · 19 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
Applies 1 U.S.C. § 109 · 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 33 U.S.C. § 903
Relies on Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond · Raphan v. United States · Zerman v. Melton · Delaware v. New York · Hallstrom v. Tillamook County
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e conclude, that in narrowing subject matter jurisdiction under the 1979 Act to employment “principally localized” in the District of Columbia, the Council fairly assumed that an injured worker who did not meet that requirement would be “principally localized” elsewhere where coverage would be available. There is nothing to suggest that the Council intended such workers to resort to tort remedies if they were not covered by the 1979 Act, or that the Council intended to change the fundamental nature of the District’s workers’ compensation scheme assuring compensation for disability in an efficient and economical ma[nn]er.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a]ffording coverage under the 1928 Act where the employer is the same at the time of the injurious exposure as well as at the time of the manifestation after the effective date of the 1979 Act also is consistent with such indications as there are that the Council did not intend for an injured employee to be without workers' compensation coverage as a result of the enactment of the 1979 Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'changes in the law which will result in a loss of benefits or inequities to workers.' " 564 A.2d at 1174 n. 24 (quoting legislative history of 1979 Act). 7 As noted initially, therefore, the court held that "the 1979 Act applies to Gardner's claim unless he is deprived of coverage under that statute, and under any other state statute, in which event the 1928 Act will apply.”
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.