Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 INDAPP 146 - In re Carroll

In re Carroll’s Empirical Analysis

1917

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
7
states following
October 1985
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently October 1985 · most notably Russell v. Johnson (1943), Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyard, Inc. v. Rosenthal (1945)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 59 state decisions

22019171920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Powers v. Hotel Bond Co. · Ohio Building Safety Vault Co. v. Industrial Board · Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co. · Northwestern Iron Co. v. Indusrrial Commission · Nelson's Case

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

  1. ““Our act does not define dependency, and does not specifically indicate who are dependents, except as to persons included within the conclusive presumption of total-dependency features of the act. Courts as a rule, in determining questions of dependency and who are dependents, resort to description, to an outlining of the elements rather than to definition. Stated generally, a dependent is one who looks to another for support and maintenance; one who is in fact dependent; one who relies on another for the reasonable necessities of life .... “Among the elements that are indicia of a state of dependency are: an obligation to support; the fact that contributions have been made to that end; that the claimant in any case is shown to háve relied on such contributions and their continuing; and the existence of some reasonable grounds as a basis for probability of their continuance or of a renewal thereof if interrupted. We would not be understood as indicating that all these elements must exist in each case in order that there may be a state of dependency. As a rule, to which there are exceptions,. however, the fact that contributions have been made is a it essential element of a state of dependency within the meaning of the act.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In all other cases, questions of dependency, in whole or in part, shall be determined in accordance with the fact, as the fact may be at the time of the injury; . . .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a wife upon a husband with whom she lives at the time of his death.”
    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.