Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 Ga. App. 249 - Chadwick v. White Provision Co.

82 Ga. App. 249 - Chadwick v. White Provision Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
5
states following
July 1983
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 1983

10 state decisions

801950196019701980decided

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 Claim of Katz v. A. Kadans & Co. · Wolfe v. McElmurray · Anderson v. Security Building Co. · John H. Kaiser Lumber Co. v. Industrial Commission · Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Gilbert

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.

  1. ““Whenever an employer puts his employees at work with fellow servants the conditions actually existing, apart from the possibility of wilful assaults by a fellow servant independent of the employment, which result in injury to a fellow employee, are a basis for compensation under the implied contract of that act. So in this case, although the employer may not have had knowledge actual or constructive that Markus, a fellow servant of the plaintiff, was insane and liable to run amuck, yet such liability of Markus to run amuck was in fact a condition under which the plaintiff was employed on the night in question, and, if such condition of Markus caused an injury to the plaintiff, as it did, then the injury to the plaintiff arose out of his employment as truly as if it had arisen from the negligence of Markus in doing his work. . . . “It is the actual conditions under which the employment is carried on that is important; not the conditions under which parties know or suppose that it is carried on. The possibility that a fellow servant may be or become insane and run amuck is a condition under which one employed with fellow servants is required to perform his work.” (See also Dodson v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 118 Neb. 276 [ 224 N.W. 289 ].)”
    2 later decisions 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.