Johnson v. Safreed’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably 6 Cal. 3d 719 - Mathews v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (1972), Velotta v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (1961)
33 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 Matter of Leonbruno v. . Champlain Silk Mills · Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Cardillo · Lundell v. Walker · Brown v. Vacuum Oil Co. · Newell v. Moreau
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The applicable rule is stated in Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 11.15(d), as follows: “The words ‘wilful intent to injure’ obviously contemplate behavior of greater gravity and culpability than the sort of thing that has sometimes qualified as aggression. Profanity, scuffling, shoving or other physical force not designated to inflict real injury do not seem to satisfy this stern designation. Moreover ... the adjective ‘wilful’ rules out acts which are instinctive or impulsive, so that even violent blows might fail to give rise to this defense if they were spontaneous and unpremeditated." [Emphasis supplied.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... there shall be no liability for compensation under this Act ... where the injury or death from injury was substantially occasioned by ... wilful intention of the injured employee to bring about the injury or death of himself or another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Of course, where the aggression of the claimant is so violent as to come within the express legislative exceptions of wilful misconduct or wilful intent to injure, he may not recover even though the assault arises out of the employment.”
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.