Pleasant v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 126 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Woodson v. Rowland (1991), Wood v. Guilford County (2002)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 126 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 Ives v. South Buffalo Railway Co. · Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc. · Hinson v. Dawson · 161 W. Va. 695 - Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc. · Brewer v. Harris
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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the intentional failure to carry out some duty imposed by law or contract which is necessary to the safety of the person or property to which it is owed.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the employee and the employer are subject to and have complied with the provisions of this Article, then the rights and remedies herein granted to the employee, his dependents, next of kin, or personal representative shall exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee, his dependents, next of kin, or representative as against the employer at common law or otherwise on account of such injury or death.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“In a recent opinion by Judge (now Justice) Vaughn, our Court of Appeals expressly held that the Workers' Compensation Act does not preclude a suit against a co-employee for intentional torts. Andrews v. Peters, 55 N.C.App. 124 . 284 S.E.2d 748 (1981), disc. rev. denied, 305 N.C. 395 , 290 S.E.2d 364 (1982). This holding rested upon the common-sense conclusion that the legislature did not intend to insulate a co-employee from liability for intentional torts inflicted upon a fellow worker. Id., 55 N.C.App. at 127, 284 S.E.2d at 750 . The Court of Appeals also noted that in many of the jurisdictions granting co-employee immunity, an exception for intentional acts causing injury had been either expressly set out in the statute or judicially grafted upon them. Id.”
3 later decisions 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.