264 Cal. App. 2d 451 - Azevedo v. Abel’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2001 · most notably Mingachos v. CBS, Inc. (1985), 7 Cal. 3d 616 - Unruh v. Truck Insurance Exchange (1972)
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 Reed v. Steamship Yaka · Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. Saint Paul Mercuy Indemnity Co. · 61 Cal. 2d 638 - Tomerlin v. Canadian Indemnity Co. · Frost v. Witter · 46 Cal. 2d 76 - Scott v. Industrial Accident Commission
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No question is raised here as to coverage by the workmens compensation law. The same law, in Labor Code sections 3600-3601, declares itself the exclusive source of entitlement for covered injuries. A damage suit as an alternative or additional source of compensation, becomes permissible only by carving a judicial exception in an uncarved statute. Whatever the question of judicial power, the ad hoc theories devised to avoid the statute possess shallow appeal. Resort to a fictitious theory of noncompensability relegates the employee to the dubious benefit of a lawsuit he may lose. The theory which poses a civil action as a sanction against deliberate torts is enfeebled by the compensation law’s penalty for serious and willful misconduct. 1 Neither moral aversion to the employer’s act nor the shiny prospect of a large damage verdict justifies interference with what is essentially a policy choice of the Legislature. The policy choice is to provide employees economic insurance against disability in exchange for the speculative possibility of general damages; to offer the augmented award for serious and willful misconduct in trade for the relatively rare award of punitive damage.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““(a) The employer, or his managing representative. “(b) If the employer is a partnership, on the part of one of the partners or a managing representative or general superintendent thereof. “(c) If the employer is a corporation, on the part of an executive, managing officer, or general superintendent thereof. “But such increase of award shall in no event exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000); together with costs and expenses incident to procurement of such award, not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““All the following proceedings shall be instituted before the [Workmens’ Compensation] appeals board and not elsewhere, except as otherwise provided in Division 4. “(a) For the recovery of compensation, or concerning any right or liability arising out of or incidental thereto....””
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.