Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 577 F.2d 273 - Mott v. ODECO

Mott v. ODECO’s Empirical Analysis

577 F.2d 273 · 1978

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably 365 So. 2d 1285 - Olsen v. Shell Oil Co. (1978), In the Matter Of: Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. (2002)

20 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

30019781980199020002010decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 653 (§ 4 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 43 U.S.C. § 1333

Relies on Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers · Batson-Cook Co. v. Industrial Steel Erectors · Kuhn v. Stan A. Plauche Real Estate Company · Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Usery · Davis v. Royal-Globe Insurance Companies

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

  1. “was inadequate as a matter of law to include any claim for injuries caused by the negligence of the indemnitee or by pre-existing defects. Id. at 276-78. However, in Mott we only held that the above-quoted phrase was not unambiguous standing alone. We stated specifically that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]hile another view of the parties' intentions would have been permissible, see Day v. ODECO, 353 F.Supp. 1350 (E.D.La.1973), we cannot say on the basis of this record that the trial court's view of the parties' intention is clearly erroneous.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “any and all claims ... incident to, arising out of, in connection with, or resulting from the activities of Subcontractor, its employees and agents”
    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.