Oslin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
5 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2012
5 district · 10 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 Rico v. State · Ponticas v. K.M.S. Investments · Baskerville v. Baskerville · Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc. · Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o prevail on a claim of negligent supervision, a plaintiff must prove that the employee’s conduct was foreseeable and that the employer failed to exercise ordinary care when supervising the employee.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[N]o prior Minnesota case [addresses] a claim for negligent supervision or negligent retention based on general harassment or retaliation. Rather, the cases thus far have allowed such claims to proceed in the context of intentional torts.”
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.