Trinity Hospitals v. Mattson’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Riverwood Commercial Park, L.L.C. v. Standard Oil Co. (2007), Erickson v. Brown (2008)
26 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 Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. · ACUITY v. Burd & Smith Construction, Inc. · Farrell v. Dearborn Manufacturing Co. · Mitchell v. Sanborn · Dimond v. State Ex Rel. State Board of Higher Education
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f the movant meets its initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion may not rest on mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must present competent admissible evidence by affidavit or other comparable means to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The workers' compensation act, N.D.C.C, tit. 65, is a legislatively created compromise for claims between injured workers and their employers. Cervantes v. Drayton Foods, L.L.C,, 1998 ND 138, ¶6 , 582 N.W.2d 2 . Under the workers' compensation act, an employee generally gives up the right to sue the employer in exchange for sure and certain benefits for all workplace injuries, regardless of fault. Id. See N.D.C.C. § 65-01-01. An 'employee' is 'a person who performs hazardous employment for another for remuneration, and an 'employer' is 'a person who engages or received the services of another for remuneration' N.D.C.C. § 65-01-02(16) and (17). Under N.D.C.C. § 65-01-08, injured employees do not have a claim for relief against a 'contributing employer or against any agent, servant, or other employee of the employer for damages for personal injuries, but shall look solely to the fund for compensation." Section 65-04-28, N.D.C.C., provides that '[elmployers who comply with the provisions of [N.D.C.C. ch. 65-04] shall not be liable to respond in damages at common law or by statute for injury to or death of any employee" Under N.D.C.C. § 65-05-06, [tlhe payment of compensation or other benefits by the organization to an injured employee, or to the injured employee's dependents in case death has ensued, are in lieu of any and all claims for relief whatsoever against the employer of the injured or deceased employee."”
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.