Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 Kan. App. 2d 79 - McCready v. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE

41 Kan. App. 2d 79 - McCready v. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Casco v. Armour Swift-Eckrich · Graham v. Dokter Trucking Group · Sall Ex Rel. Sall v. T'S, Inc. · Angleton v. Starkan, Inc. · Bryant v. Excel Corp.

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

  1. “"the usual answer in the past has been to leave this loss on the employee, on the theory that he or she must meet the burden of proof of establishing affirmatively a clear causal connection between the conditions under which the employee worked and the occurrence of the injury. More recently, however, some courts have reasoned in the following vein: Either the employer or the employee must bear the loss; to show connection with the employment, there is at least the fact that the injury occurred while the employee was working; to show connection with the employee personally there is nothing; therefore, although the work connection is slender, it is at least stronger than any connection with the claimant's personal life." 1 Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 4.03.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““‘[T]he nature of the cause of harm may be simply unknown. The commonest example of [this] is the unexplained fall in the course of employment. If an employee falls while walking down the sidewalk or across a level factoiy floor for no discoverable reason, the injury resembles that from stray bullets and other positional risks in this respect: The particular injury would not have happened if the employee had not been engaged upon an employment errand at the time. In a pure unexplained fall case, there is no way in which an award can be justified as a matter of causation theory except by a recognition that this but-for reasoning satisfies the “arising” requirement.’” 41 Kan. App. 2d at 89 (quoting 1 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 7.04[l][a]).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[n]either party could explain the reason for [the claimant's] fall.”
    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.