Warner v. Industrial Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 56 Ill. 2d 272 - Union Starch v. Industrial Commission · Christian v. Chicago & Illinois Midland Railway Co. · 57 Ill. 2d 38 - Jewel Companies, Inc. v. Industrial Commission · Schafer v. Industrial Commission · 65 Ill. 2d 426 - Malco, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘We may not disregard the decision of the Commission merely because the facts here are undisputed. It is well within the province of the Commission to draw inferences from undisputed facts to determine whether injury resulted from conduct which unreasonably or unnecessarily increased the risks of injury which attend such employment. [Citations.] When the Commission’s decision is based upon such permissible inferences, we will disturb it only if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.’ (Yost v. Industrial Com. (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 548, 551 .)” (Warner v. Industrial Com. (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 188, 190-91 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.