Fryer v. Kranz’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2022
9 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 Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Company · Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co. · 124 Ill. App. 3d 56 - Handley v. Unarco Industries, Inc. · 754 So. 2d 683 - Turner v. PCR, INC. · Walz v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the workers' compensation scheme, exclusivity serves two important values: (1) it maintains the balance of sacrifices between employer and employee in the substitution of no-fault liability for tort liability, and (2) it minimizes litigation, even litigation of undoubted merit. Exclusiveness imparts efficiency to the workers' compensation system. Every presumption is on the side of avoiding superimposing the complexities and uncertainties of tort litigation on the compensation process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McMillin v. Mueller“the lone remedy is workers' compensation. Id. Moreover, even though the employer's conduct is careless, grossly negligent, reckless or wanton and even if that employer knowingly permits a hazardous work condition to exist, knowingly orders a claimant to perform an extremely dangerous job, or willfully fails to furnish a safe workplace, those acts still fall within the domain of workers' compensation. Id. [¶ 15.] In addressing this issue, we note that the availability of”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McMillin v. Mueller“The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee subject to this title, on account of personal injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment, shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representatives, dependents, or next of kin, on account of such injury or death against his employer or any employee, partner, officer or director of such employer, except rights and remedies arising from intentional tort.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McMillin v. Mueller
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.