Kirlin v. Halverson’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Hass v. Wentzlaff (2012), Ten Broeck Dupont, Inc. v. Brooks (2009)
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 48 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 Temporomandibular Joint Implants Products Liability Litigation Temporomandibular Joint Implant Recipients v. The Dow Chemical Company · 50 Cal. App. 3d 608 - Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Co. · Carr v. Wm. C. Crowell Co. · Ponticas v. K.M.S. Investments · David Hanten v. The School District of Riverview Gardens
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A master is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his servant while acting outside the scope of his employment as to prevent him from intentionally harming others or from so conducting himself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if (a) the servant (i) is upon the premises in possession of the master or upon which the servant is privileged to enter only as his servant, or (ii) is using a chattel of the master, and (b) the master (i) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his servant, and (ii) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A negligent supervision claim alleges that the employer inadequately or defectively managed, directed or oversaw its employees. The Restatement, § 317, on the other hand, implicates an employer’s duty to control employees when the employees are acting outside the scope of employment. While both a negligent supervision claim and a Restatement § 317 claim might involve conduct outside the scope of employment, a negligent supervision claim implicates more than the employer’s duty to control the employee. A claim of negligent supervision avers that the employer failed to exercise reasonable care in supervising (managing, directing, or overseeing) its employees so as to prevent harm to other employees or third persons. A duty to control, in contrast, examines whether the employee caused harm while using a chattel of the employer or while on the premises of the employer, which conduct the employer could and should control.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There is no duty to control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless (a) a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right to protection. Subsection (a) "presents the requirements for a special relationship” in a duty to control claim.” Id. (quotations omitted). Under this subsection, the "actor” is the person alleged to have the duty, and the "third person” is the person to be controlled. Here, Pizza Hut is the "actor” and Williams is the "third person.” "Comment c. to this Section directs that 'the relations between the actor and a third person which require the actor to control the third person's conduct are stated in §§ 316-319.'” Id. (citation omitted).”
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.