Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 939 F.2d 839 - Ek v. Herrington

Ek v. Herrington’s Empirical Analysis

939 F.2d 839 · 1991

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2018

2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

30199120002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge Corporation, a New York Corporation, Defendants · Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport · Smith v. State · Sanchez v. Galey · Rooney v. United States

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

  1. “We accept the Restatement’s suggestion that the risk posed by malfunctioning brakes is an ordinary one that an employer of an independent contractor has no duty to provide against. Similarly, we hold that the risk posed by overloading a logging truck is not a peculiar risk that arises in the normal course of logging and for which special precautions must be taken. It is a risk that would not arise, but for the independent contractor's negligence, and which can be avoided by the ordinary precaution of not overloading the truck. An employer of an independent contractor is justified in presuming that a careful contractor will not create that risk---- The duty rests solely on the shoulders of the independent contractor. [Id at 844 (emphasis added).]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.