Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 542 SW3D 315 - Conner v. Ogletree

Conner v. Ogletree’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
December 2021
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Hough v. Railway Co. · Northern Pacific Railroad v. Hambly · Curtis v. McNair · Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Alline a Dixon a · McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

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.

  1. “[T]he only thing that matters for purposes of applying Parr and Peters [ ] is whether the duty the co-employee breached was part of the employer's duty to protect employees from reasonably foreseeable risks in the workplace.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) allegations that a co-employee breached a duty unrelated to co-employee's employment, Peters , 489 S.W.3d at 794-95 ("employees are liable at common law to third persons, including co-employees, for breaching a legal duty owed independently of any master-servant relationship"); and (2) allegations that a co-employee breached the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace in a manner that was not reasonably foreseeable to the employer, id. at 796 (describing such a breach as a "transitory risk").”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Id. The employer had attempted to fulfill its duty to safeguard against that risk by promulgating rules and relying on its employees and supervisors to follow them. Id. The Court found that it was reasonably foreseeable to the employer that its workers would be negligent in carrying out these responsibilities and failing to follow the employer's rules. Id. at 327-28 . The other plaintiff alleged that his co-employee negligently drove a forklift and was not properly licensed or trained to operate it. Id. at 328 .”
    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.