Calkins v. Boydston’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2020
6 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 Boehm v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce · England v. Simmons · Barnette v. Doyle · O'DONNELL v. City of Casper · Jones Land & Livestock Co. v. Federal Land Bank of Omaha
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If appellant in this case is to avoid a summary judgment, he must come forth with evidence that [appellees] had actual knowledge that the pump was unguarded and that their failure to provide a guard was done willfully. It is not sufficient for appellant to show that the [appel-lees’] failure to maintain the pump in a safe condition was careless, inadvertent or an error in judgment. Barnette, 622 P.2d 1349 [1981]. It is not sufficient for appellant to show that in failing to place a guard on the drive shaft the [appellees] violated OSHA regulations, breached a duty to provide a safe workplace or acted ineffectually or unreasonably. See Poulos, 765 P.2d at 365 [Wyo.1988]; Stephenson [v. Pacific Power & Light Co. ], 779 P.2d 1169 [Wyo.1989]; and Baros, [v. Wells], 780 P.2d 341 [Wyo.1989], The case law is clear that appellant must show that the [appellees] knew of the risk of harm or that the risk was obvious and yet they willfully disregarded the risk. The evidence in the record fails to make such a showing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morris v. Smith“The rights and remedies provided in this act [§§ 27-12-101 through 27-12-804] for an employee and his dependents for injuries incurred in extrahazardous employments are in lieu of all other rights and remedies against any employer making contributions required by this act, or his employees acting within the scope of their employment unless the employees are culpably negligent, but do not supersede any rights and remedies available to an employee and his dependents against any other person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morris v. Smith
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.