Thompson v. Dale’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * *. Perhaps, before proceeding further, we should dispose of a contention made by plaintiff that defendants are denied the right to rely upon the common law defenses of assumed risk, contributory negligence and fellow servant by a certain section of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Of course, the one last mentioned, that of fellow servant, is excluded from consideration since there is nothing in the evidence to warrant that defense. The only occasion for even mentioning it is that it is listed along with the other two defenses which counsel for plaintiff say are denied to defendants under the language of 1953 Comp. § 59-10-5. * * * “It seems clear to us that the questioned section can have no application to an occupation that is excepted from the Act. We have held it does not apply to employers of farm and ranch labor. Koger v. A. T. Woods, Inc., 38 N.M. 241 , 31 P.2d 255 . The statute, 1953 Comp. § 59-10-4, expressly excepts from its provision certain employers. It reads: “ ‘This act shall not apply to employers of private domestic servants or of farm and ranch laborers.’ “Decided cases under similar provisions in the Workmen’s Compensation laws of other states support the conclusions we have reached on this subject. [Citing text writers and cases from other states.] “Having concluded that the defendants are not barred by the questioned language of the Workmen’s Compensation Act from relying on the common law defenses of contributory negligence and assumed risk, * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Addison v. Tessier