Warner v. Leder’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently February 2002 · most notably Wood v. Guilford County (2002), Pleasant v. Johnson (1985)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 72 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Feitig v. Chalkley · Peet v. Mills · Bresnahan v. Barre · Essick v. City of Lexington · Murphy v. Miettinen
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every employer who accepts the compensation provisions of this article shall secure the payment of compensa tion to his employees in the manner hereinafter provided; and while such security remains in force, he or those conducting his business shall only be liable to any employee who elects to come under this article for personal injury or death by accident' to the extent and in the manner herein specified.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Where the employer is guilty of felonious or willful assault on an employee he cannot relegate him to the compensation act for recovery. It would be against sound reason to allow the employer deliberately to batter his helper, and then compel the worker to accept moderate workmen's compensation benefits, either from his insurance carrier or from himself as self-insurer. The weight of authority gives the employee the choice of suing the employer at common law or accepting compensation."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““We hold that an officer or agent of a corporation who is acting within the scope of his authority for and on behalf of the corporation, and whose acts are such as to render the corporation liable therefor, is among those conducting the business of the corporation, within the purview of G.S. 97-9, and entitled to the immunity it gives; [citations omitted] and that the provision in G.S. 97-10 [now G.S. 97-10.1] which gives the injured employee or his personal representative 'a right to recover damages for such injury, loss of service, or death from any person other than the employer/ means any other person or party who is a stranger to the employment but whose negligence contributed to the injury. * * * The Legislature never intended that officers, agents, and employees conducting the business of the employer, should so underwrite this economic loss.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McWilliams v. Parham
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.