Gomez v. Acquistapace’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 34 Cal. 3d 18 - Williams v. State of California · 43 Cal. 3d 148 - Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection District · 52 Cal. 3d 1 - Shoemaker v. Myers · 1 Cal. 4th 1083 - Gantt v. Sentry Insurance · 54 Cal. 3d 868 - Christensen v. Superior Court
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Wjhile occasional injuries from defective work equipment may be an unexpected incident of employment, workers should not be expected to anticipate the almost immediate destruction of such equipment after an industrial accident. Indeed, the average worker would reasonably anticipate the opposite, by assuming the employer will preserve defective equipment, if for no other reason than to protect the employers’ own potential claims against manufacturers, distributors and retailers of the equipment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“injuries which trigger application of the exclusive remedy rule are injuries `to the worker's person, as opposed to his property '”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`Injury' includes any injury or disease. . . .”
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.