Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 60 INDAPP 374 - Benkowski v. Sanders & Egbert Co.

Benkowski v. Sanders & Egbert Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1915

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
December 1969
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 1969

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

100191519201930194019501960decided

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 Davis v. Mercer Lumber Co. · Vandalia Railroad v. Stillwell · Monteith v. Kokomo Wood Enameling Co. · Suelzer v. Carpenter · Kingan & Co. v. Gleason

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

  1. ““There are other provisions of the act of 1911, supra, which impose specific duties on persons engaged in the construction of buildings, to provide specified kinds of flooring, staging, scaffolding, and protections for the workers engaged in such work, but the portion of § 4 quoted, which purports to apply to persons other than those engaged in the construction of buildings, imposes merely general duties, and not specific duties. Where a statute lays a specific duty on an employer, violation on his part of such specific duty is negligence. Suelzer v. Carpenter (1915), 183 Ind. 23 , 107 N. E. 467 ; Davis v. Mercer Lumber Co. (1905), 164 Ind. 413, 420 , 73 N. E. 899 ; Monteith v. Kokomo, etc., Co. (1902), 159 Ind. 149, 152 , 64 N. E. 610 , 58 L.R.A. 944 . Where merely general duties are imposed, a somewhat different rule is applied. Monteith v. Kokomo, etc., Co., supra. 151.””
    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.