Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 INDAPP 458 - In re Ayers

In re Ayers’s Empirical Analysis

1918

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
7
states following
August 1977
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 1977 · most notably Ex Parte Majestic Coal Co. (1922), 83 Ind. App. 159 - Jeffries v. Pitman-Moore Co. (1925)

37 state decisions

901918192019301940195019601970decided

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 McNicol's Case · Larke v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance · Sundine's Case · Holland-St. Louis Sugar Co. v. Shraluka · In re Loper

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

  1. ““Where an employe is doing an act incident to his employment, while on the premises where he is employed to work, which is customary among the employes, and the employer has acquiesced in such custom for a considerable length of time, an injury received by such employe while so engaged will ordinarily be held to arise out of the employment within the spirit and meaning of the Indiana Workmen’s Compensation Act. (Citations.) “An injured employe otherwise entitled to compensation cannot be denied the benefit of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, swprd, because he was guilty of negligence in doing the act which resulted in his injury. ... . . The act of going into an adjoining depart ment falls short of showing ‘wilfull misconduct’ or ‘intentional self-inflicted injury.’ § 8, supra. It evidences a mistake and might afford proof of negligence on the part of the employe, but negligence is not involved in the question presented for our determination.””
    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.