Trivette v. Yount’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
February 2017
most recently cited
9 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd. · Woodson v. Rowland · Page v. Sloan · Lamb v. Wedgewood South Corp. · Variety Wholesalers, Inc. v. Salem Logistics Traffic Services, LLC
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although [the co-employees] may have known certain dangerous parts of the machine were unguarded when they instructed [the plaintiff] to work at the machine, we do not believe this supports an inference that they intended that [the plaintiff] be injured or that [the co-employees] were manifestly indifferent to the consequences of his doing so.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[E]ven unquestionably negligent behavior rarely meets the high standard of 'willful, wanton and reckless' negligence established in Pleasant .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“even unquestionably negligent behavior rarely meets the high standard of “willful, wanton, and reckless” negligence established in Pleasant . . . . [T]he risk that the discharge of a fire extinguisher might cause a relapse of a neuromuscular disease is less apparent. Despite the assertion . . . that [the] defendant created a hazardous environment and the fire extinguisher was “unsafe equipment,” no evidence indicates that the extinguisher or its effluvium presented any danger, either immediate or latent, and the record is silent as to whether the extinguisher bore any warning labels. Even if we assume that [the] defendant knew that an unexpected discharge would be messy and unpleasant, we do not believe the evidence before us . . . supports an inference that [the] defendant was willfully, wantonly, and recklessly negligent, or that he was manifestly indifferent to the consequences of an accidental outburst.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.