6 Ohio App. 2d 25 - Pierce v. Keller’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2016
10 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 148 Ohio St. 693 - Sebek v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co. · 127 Ohio St. 345 - Industrial Commission v. Baker · 128 Ohio St. 129 - Industrial Commission v. Gintert · 136 Ohio St. 115 - Ashbrook v. Industrial Commission · 120 Ohio App. 221 - Lloyd v. Admr., Bureau of Workmen's Compensation
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the injury is sustained by the employee while performing a special task, service, mission, or errand for his employer, even before or after customary working hours, or on a *Page 8 day on which he does not ordinarily work. For the exception to arise, the mission must be the major factor in the journey or movement, and not merely incidental thereto, and the mission must be a substantial one * * *.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"where an employee receives accidental injuries on a highway, causing his death, while traveling from his home to the place where he reports for work, at a time outside of the hours for which he is paid wages, by a route, at a time, and by a means of transportation, selected by him and under his control, and at such time and place is carrying instructions for and at the direction of his employer, which mission is merely incidental to and not the reason for the journey, such injuries are a result of hazards which are similarly encountered by the public generally, are not a result of exposure occasioned by the nature, conditions or surroundings of his employment, do not, therefore, arise from his employment and are not compensable under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act."”
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.