Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 569 P2D 1323 - Elliott v. Brown

Elliott v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
11
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

1 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably O'CONNELL v. Chasdi (1987), 52 Md. App. 387 - Continental Casualty Co. v. Mirabile (1982)

1 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 11 states

150197719801990200020102020decided

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 Ransom v. Haner · 142 Cal. App. 2d 350 - Carter v. Superior Court · Bryan v. Utah International · 139 Ind. App. 658 - Burkhart v. Wells Electronics Corp. · Williams v. Smith

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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A parent corporation may be held liable for its subsidiary’s conduct when the parent uses a separate corporate form to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, commit fraud, or defend crime. The parent corporation may also be liable for the wrongful conduct of its subsidiary when the subsidiary is the mere instrumentality of the parent. Liability is imposed in such instances simply because the two corporations are so closely intertwined that they do not merit treatment as separate entities.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We do not believe it would be wise public policy to allow an intentional tortfeasor to shift his lability for his acts to such a fund. Assaults by fellow workers differ not in degree but in kind from the type of harm the [workers compensation] statute was enacted to deal with.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The lability of an employer prescribed in AS 23.30.045 is exclusive and in place of all other liability of the employer and any fellow employee to the employee, the employee's legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from the employer or fellow employee at law or in admiralty on account of the injury or death....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.