Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 U.S. 566 - Water Company v. Ware

Water Company v. Ware’s Empirical Analysis

83 U.S. 566 · 1872

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
25
states following
April 2008
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 4 district · 68 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2008 · most notably Casement v. Brown (1893), St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance (1891)

16 federal appellate · 4 district · 68 state decisions — followed in 25 states

26018721880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Chicago City v. Robbins · Callahan v. Burlington & Missouri River Railroad

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

  1. “"Where the obstruction or defect caused or created in the street is purely collateral to the work contracted to be done, and is entirely the result of the wrongful acts of the contractor or his workmen, the rule is that the employer is not liable; but where the obstruction or defect which occasioned the injury results directly from the acts which the contractor agreed and was authorized to do, the person who employs the contractor and authorizes him to do those acts is equally liable to the injured party."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"The said water company expressly agrees to protect all persons against damages by reason of excavations made by them in the said city, in laying pipes, and to keep the said excavations properly guarded by day and night, and to become responsible for all damages which may occur by reason of the neglect of their employes in the premises, and that the streets and highways in said city shall not be unnecessarily obstructed or incumbered in laying said pipes."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““If the contractor does the thing which he is employed to do, the employer is as responsible for the thing as if he had done it himself; but if the act which is the subject of complaint is purely collateral to the matter contracted to be done, and arises indirectly in the course of the performance of the work, the employer is not liable, because he never authorized the work to be done.””
    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.