Caspar v. Lewin’s Empirical Analysis
1910
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently November 1978 · most notably 66 Cal. 2d 790 - Alber v. Owens (1967), McCoy v. Wesley Hospital & Nurse Training School (1961)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Monteith v. Kokomo Wood Enameling Co. · 16 E.H. Smith 399 - Glens Falls Portland Cement Co. v. Travelers' Insurance · McAllister v. Fair · Evansville Hoop & Stave Co. v. Bailey · Flint & Pere Marquette Railway Co. v. Lull
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Manufacturing establishments, as those words are used in this act, shall mean and include all smelters, oil refineries, cement works, mills' of every kind, machine and repair shops, and, in addition to the foregoing, any other kind or character of manufacturing establishment, of any nature or description whatsoever, wherein any natural products or other articles or materials of any kind, in a raw or unfinished or incomplete state or condition, are converted into a new or improved or different ■ form.” (Gen. Stat. 1909, § 4682.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘ ‘ The legislature was evidently moved by the fact that very often an injured employee is not competent to demonstrate the practicability of providing safeguards, and may not be able to command the expert evidence necessary to do so.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Every person owning or operating any manufacturing establishment in which machinery is used shall furnish and supply for use therein belt shifters, or other safe mechanical contrivance, for the purpose of throwing on or off belts or pulleys; and wherever it.is practicable, machinery shall be operated with loose pulleys. All vats, pans, saws, planers, cog gearing, belting, shafting, set-screws and machinery of every description used in a manufacturing establishment shall, where practicable, be properly and safely guarded, for the purpose of preventing or avoiding the death of or injury to the persons employed or laboring in any such establishment; and it is hereby made the duty of all persons owning or operating manufacturing establishments to provide and keep the same furnished with safeguards as herein specified.” (Laws 1903, ch. 356, § 4, Gen. Stat. 1909, § 4679.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.