Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 103 Ohio App. 3d 236 - McGee v. Goodyear Atomic Corp.

103 Ohio App. 3d 236 - McGee v. Goodyear Atomic Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

154
cited by 154 later decisions
1
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 149 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc. (1999), 119 Ohio App. 3d 228 - Woods v. Dutta (1997)

3 federal appellate · 149 state decisions

8201995200020102020decided

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 Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. · Mitseff v. Wheeler · Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. · Bostic v. Connor · 13 Ohio App. 3d 7 - Viock v. Stowe-Woodward 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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To establish an intentional tort of an employer, proof beyond that required to prove negligence and beyond that to prove recklessness must be established. Where the employer acts despite his knowledge of some risk, his conduct may be negligence. As the probability increases that particular consequences may follow, then the employer's conduct may be characterized as recklessness. As the probability that the consequences will follow further increases, and the employer knows that injuries to employees are certain or substantially certain to result from the process, procedure or condition and he still proceeds, he is treated by the law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result. However, the mere knowledge and appreciation of a risk — something short of substantial certainty — is not intent.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The purpose of summary judgment is not to try issues of fact, but rather to determine whether triable issues of fact exist. * * * Thus, a court should not pass upon the credibility of witnesses or weigh the relative value of their testimony in rendering summary judgment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “consider either 'the quantum' or the 'superior credibility' of evidence.”
    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.