Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 Ohio App. 3d 409 - Kelbley v. Hurley

94 Ohio App. 3d 409 - Kelbley v. Hurley’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jones v. VIP Development Co. · MTD Products, Inc. v. Robatin · State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Webb · 4 Ohio App. 3d 3 - Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies v. BPS Co. · 5 Ohio St. 3d 91 - Kaiser v. Strall

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

  1. “Employers who comply with section 4123.35 of the Revised Code shall not be liable to respond in damages at common law or by statute for any injury * * * received or contracted by any employee in the course of or arising out of his employment * * * occurring during the period covered by such premium so paid into the state insurance fund * * * whether or not such injury * * * is compensable under this chapter.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “`Common-law damages are clearly unavailable under R.C. 4123.741 for injuries negligently inflicted by a co-employee in the course of employment.' Jones v. VIP Dev. Co. (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 90 , 100 , 15 OBR 246, 255, 472 N.E.2d 1046 , 1055 . The intent of workers' compensation is to bar claims against fellow employees by a co-employee who has previously been compensated and made whole. {¶ 16}”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A party who is injured as a result of a co-employee's negligent acts, who applied for benefits under Ohio's workers' compensation statutes, and whose injury is found to be compensable thereunder is precluded from pursuing any additional common-law or statutory remedy against such co-employee.”
    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.