511 So. 2d 1027 - Raulerson v. Roehr’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 61 Wis. 2d 421 - Kruse v. Schieve · 509 So. 2d 268 - Streeter v. Sullivan · 409 So. 2d 35 - Chorak v. Naughton · 339 So. 2d 1136 - West v. Jessop · 366 So. 2d 1193 - Zurich Ins. Co. v. Scofi
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“10. Prior to October 12, 1991, Defendant MEE-LEE had been advised that excessive furniture within the Intensive Care Module posed a safety hazard, but Defendant MEE-LEE took no steps to remove the furniture or to reduce the patient population within the Intensive Care Module. 11. Defendant had the ability to control the patient population, as was evidenced by the fact that he caused said population to be reduced to within authorized numbers in anticipation of a hospital accreditation inspection, and, again, in anticipation of an inspection by the State Department of Health. 12. The actions of Defendant MEE-LEE in failing to take steps to provide for the safety of plaintiff IDDINGS and other staff members who were required to work within the Intensive Care Module with individuals who often were hostile and/or violent constituted negligence and/or willful and wanton misconduct on the part of Defendant MEE-LEE.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Iddings v. Mee-Lee“over and beyond the duty owed the employer is present, the supervisory employee would be subject to suit. In sum, in a fashion similar to the other cases relied upon by the dissent, the Raulerson decision judicially effects a scheme similar to that already achieved by the Hawai`i legislature in HRS chapter 386: a supervisory employee is immune from suits based on the negligent breach of a duty in the course of his or her employment absent”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Iddings v. Mee-Lee“any affirmative act of negligence which went beyond the scope of his employer's duty to provide a safe place to work.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Iddings v. Mee-Lee
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.