Walker v. Mlakar’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2019
1 federal appellate · 8 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 Thompson v. Bohlken · Johnson v. Interstate Power Co. · Koll v. Manatt's Transportation Co. · Osborn v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc. · Craven v. Oggero
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Eister is clear support for the proposition that a coemployee's violation of an OSHA regulation is not negligence per se as to the injured worker’s coemployee. The question, however, was not presented in Eister as to whether the violation could be used as evidence of gross negligence on the part of the coemployee. In Johnson [v. Interestate Power Co., 481 N.W.2d 310 (Iowa 1992)], we stated our longstanding corollary to the negligence per se rule that "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.'" This is the position argued by Walker today, one which is different from the one decided in Eister .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[W]anton conduct lies somewhere between the mere unreasonable risk of harm in ordinary negligence and intent to harm.... The usual meaning assigned to “willful,” “wanton,” or “reckless,” accord ing to taste as to the word used, is that the actor has intentionally done- an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a risk known to or so obvious that he must be taken to be aware of it, and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This concept of wantonness 'involves the combination of attitudes: a realization of imminent danger, coupled with a reckless disregard or lack of concern for the probable consequences of the act.' "). Thompson 's three-part test "is necessarily a stringent one because undesirable consequences could result from improvidently holding a co-employee liable to a fellow employee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Van Dorn v. Hunter
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.