Schmidt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 12 state decisions

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “intentional and malicious act or omission”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Blain v. Stillwater Mining Co. · Sherner v. Conoco Inc.

2. “Without attempting to reconcile the inconsistencies in our prior decisions, and to further reconcile those decisions with the plain language of § 39-71-413, MCA, we reaffirm our commitment to at least that part of our decision in Great Western Sugar Co. which held that allegations of negligence, no matter how wanton, are insufficient to avoid the exclusive remedy of the Workers Compensation Act. We conclude, based on the undisputed facts established in this case, that [the plaintiff] has not established that an employee of the State of Montana committed an intentional act with malice, which caused injuries to [the employee], We arrive at that conclusion regardless of whether we apply the definition of malice found at § 1-1-204(3), MCA, or that found at § 27-1-221, MCA.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Schmidt v. RHONE-POULENC, INC.

3. “[a] defendant is guilty of actual malice if the defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability of injury to the plaintiff and: (a) deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff; or (b) deliberately proceeds to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the plaintiff.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Blain v. Stillwater Mining Co.