10 Kan. App. 2d 165 - Kimzey v. Interpace Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Gurry v. Cumberland Farms, Inc. (1990), 105 Wash. 2d 217 - Corr v. Willamette Industries, Inc. (1986)
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 31 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 Duprey v. Shane · Billy v. Consolidated Machine Tool Corp. · Mays v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. · Bright v. Bragg · Duncan v. Perry Packing Co.
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The doctrine should not be used for the purpose of simply evading the exclusivity provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. When properly applied, it will be limited to those exceptional situations where the employer-employee relationship is not involved because the employer is acting as a second persona unrelated to his status as an employer, that confers upon him obligations independent of those imposed upon him as an employer. As such, it will not defeat the purposes or policies of the act. Nor, in our view, will it erode the employer’s immunity under the exclusivity provision of the act where the claim of liability is properly within the purview of the act. [Citations omitted.]” (Emphasis added.) 10 Kan. App. 2d at 170 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]n employer may become a third person, vulnerable to tort suit by an employee, if— and only if—he possesses a second persona so completely independent from and unrelated to his status as employer that by established standards the law recognizes it as a separate person.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““According to the dual capacity doctrine, an employer who is generally immune from tort liability to an employee injured in a work-related accident may become Hable to his employee as a third-party tortfeasor if he occupies, in addition to his capacity as an employer, a second capacity that confers upon him obligations independent of those imposed upon him as an employer. It is in this second capacity that liability to an employee may be imposed.””
2 later decisions 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.