Johnson v. Interstate Power Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Spaur v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1994), Gerst v. Marshall (1996)
37 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 Dole v. Dow Chemical Co. · 26 Ill. App. 3d 971 - Scott v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co. · Iowa Power and Light Co. v. Abild Construction Co. · Hysell v. Iowa Public Service Co. · Kurth v. Van Horn
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a knowledge of the peril to be apprehended; (2) knowledge that injury is a probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger; and (3) a conscious failure to avoid the peril.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a violation [of OSHA regulations] is evidence of negligence `as to all persons who are likely to be exposed to injury as a result of the violation.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“On cross-examination by Interstate’s counsel, a D & J representative testified that D & J expected to use the electricity safely. The representative also testified that D & J would anticipate that Interstate would expect D & J to use the electricity safely. Interstate argues that this testimony establishes an independent duty on the part of D & J to use electricity safely and that this independent duty arises out of the agreement to purchase the electricity. We view this testimony as describing nothing more than the general duty that every member of society owes to every other member — the duty not to harm him through tortious acts. Such a general duty does not support a right of indemnity in a case where the would-be indemnitor is an “employer” covered by the workmen’s compensation law. Hysell v. Iowa Pub. Serv. Co., 534 F.2d 775 , 783 (8th Cir.1976) (quoting Western Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Grolier, Inc., 501 F.2d 434, 438 (8th Cir.1974)). The testimony does not describe a duty that is of a “specific, defined nature” which would support a claim of indemnity against an employer. See Hysell, 534 F.2d at 782 (holding that an employer, through its employees, did not breach an independent duty to power company not to come in contact with power company’s transmission lines because such a duty is a general duty, not an independent one); see also Iowa Power & Light Co. v. Abild Constr. Co., 259 Iowa 314, 326-27 , 144 N.W.2d 303, 310-11 (1966) (holding that “duty not to cause injury t”
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.