97 Ind. App. 642 - Mitchell v. Ball Bros. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 1971
19 state decisions
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 Empire Health & Accident Insurance v. Purcell · 83 Ind. App. 159 - Jeffries v. Pitman-Moore Co. · Rogers v. Rogers · 82 Ind. App. 89 - Moore v. Sefton Manufacturing Corp. · Kokomo Steel & Wire Co. v. Irick
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is a general rule of law that a workman does not lose his character as a workman, while eating his lunch, on his employer’s premises, at a place generally regarded to be safe — with his employer’s consent — while he does lose his character as a workman when he leaves the premises of his employer to eat his lunch. See Boyd, Compensation, p. 1060. For long list of lunch hour cases see Schneider, Workmen’s Compensation Law (2d Ed.) sec. 276, p. 843.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.