Foley v. Rust International’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 6 district · 11 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In order for the rule stated in this Section to apply, the employer must have retained at least some degree of control over the manner in which the work is done. It is not enough that he has merely a general right to order the work stopped or resumed, to inspect its progress or to receive reports, to make suggestions or recommendations which need not necessarily be followed, or to prescribe alterations and deviations. Such a general right is usually reserved to employers, but it does not mean that the contractor is controlled as to his methods of work, or as to operative detail. There must be such a retention of a right of supervision that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in his own way.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McNamara v. Massachusetts Port Authority · 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 184 - Bassi v. Julian Crane & Equipment Corp.

2. “The trial judge must view all of the evidence and inferences flowing therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Such a motion should be granted only if, as a matter of law, no conclusion but one can be drawn.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico · Watlington v. University of Puerto Rico

3. “The contract between Suffolk and the building owner conferred on Suffolk general responsibility and control for the project, including responsibility for safety. The contract provided that “[Suffolk] shall be solely responsible for and have control over construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for coordinating all portions of the Work under the [c]ontract.... ” In the area of safety, Suffolk was “responsible for initiating, maintaining and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the performance of the [cjontract.” Moreover, Suffolk was required to “take reasonable precautions for safety of and shall provide reasonable protection to prevent damage, injury or loss to ... employees on the Work and other persons who may be affected thereby.” Suffolk was required to “erect and maintain ... reasonable safeguards for safety and protection.” The contract also allocated to Suffolk sole responsibility “for all injuries to persons ... caused by or resulting from [its] negligence.” Finally, the contract required Suffolk to “designate a responsible member of [its] organization at the site whose duty shall be the prevention of accidents.” These various provisions of the contract indicate that Suffolk was to control the project, including all aspects of safety. In addition to the contract provisions, there was further evidence suggesting that Suffolk had more than minimal control over the safety aspects of the project. Suffolk had a pr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lopez v. Equity Office Management, LLC