Scott v. Shinn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`Excludes an injury which cannot fairly be traced to the employment as a contributing proximate cause and which comes from a hazard to which the workmen would have been equally exposed apart from the employment. The causative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood. * * * It need not have been foreseen or expected, but after the event it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence.'"”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Barnes · Jackson v. Clark & Fay, Inc.

2. “the causative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood. * * * an injury purely coincidental, or contemporaneous, or collateral, with the employment, * * * will not cause the injury or seizure to be considered as arising out of the employment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jackson v. Clark & Fay, Inc.

3. ““We are unable to see any causal connection between the nature of Scott’s employment and his injury. Walking in on a holdup cannot be said to have been a peculiar danger to which his work exposed him.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thornton v. RCA Service Co.