Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 Okla. 203 - Aderhold v. Bishop

Aderhold v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis

1923

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
12
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably McConnell v. Williams (1949), Nepstad v. Lambert (1951)

3 federal appellate · 60 state decisions — followed in 12 states

2401923193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Messmer v. Bell & Coggeshall Co. · St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Hodge · Barker v. Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Co. · Kernodle v. Elder · Ward v. Richards

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

  1. “"* * * the true test of the existence of the relation of master and servant in a given case does not depend upon whether the servant was in the general employ of the master, but upon whether the master actually exercises supervision and control over the servant during the time he uses such servant. A general master may loan the service of his employe to another for a specified purpose and for a short period of time, in which case the individual to whom such general servants are let is the master and responsible for their negligent acts so long as he exercises actual supervision over them.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The power of control is the test of liability under the maxim respondeat superior. If the master cannot command the alleged servant, then the acts of the latter are not his, and he is not responsible for them. If the principal cannot control and direct the alleged agent, then he is not his agent.” 94 Okl. 206 , 221 P. 755 , 60 A. L. R. 137.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““ * * • * • in no case that we have been able to find has a reversal resulted where it is possible to determine from the whole record that the jury could not have been prejudicially influenced.””
    1 later decision 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.