Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 Conn. App. 174 - Kegel v. McNeely

2 Conn. App. 174 - Kegel v. McNeely’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
September 2017
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Alpha Crane Service, Inc. v. Capitol Crane Co. (1986), 20 Conn. App. 619 - Rivera v. Fox (1990)

40 state decisions

2101984199020002010decided

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 1 Conn. App. 195 - Yeske v. Avon Old Farms School, Inc. · Dias v. Adams · Davey v. Pepperidge Farms, Inc. · Johnson v. Consolidated Industries, Inc. · McDonald v. Connecticut 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[a]t the time of the decedent's injury, the truck, with its ignition having been turned off, could not function to move the truck itself nor did it function or move so as to change the position of the crane or its boom.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “not engaged at the time of the fellow employee's injury in any activity related to driving or moving a vehicle or related to a circumstance resulting from the movement of a vehicle, the lawsuit does not fall within the exception of General Statutes § 31-293a.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “If an employee or, in case of his death, his dependent has a right to benefits or compensation under this chapter on account of injury or death from injury caused by the negligence or wrong of a fellow employee, such right shall be the exclusive remedy of such injured employee or dependent and no action may be brought against such fellow employee unless such wrong was wilful or malicious or the action is based on the fellow employee's negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle as defined in section 14-1 .”
    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.