12 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 61 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Commission.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Commission Anchor | green | “to obtain compensation under the act, a claimant bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has suffered a disabling injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment.” | 11 |
| 2 | Orsini v. Industrial Commission | green | “for an injury to have arisen out of the employment, the risk of injury must be a risk peculiar to the work or a risk to which the employee is exposed to a greater degree than the general public by reason of his employment.” | 11 |
| 3 | Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Commission | green | “had its origin in some risk connected with, or incidental to, the employment so as to create a causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury.” | 6 |
| 4 | Sisbro, Inc. v. Industrial Commission | green | “the injury had its origin in some risk connected with, or incidental to, the employment so as to create a causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury.” | 6 |
| 5 | Metropolitan Water Reclamation District v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission | green | “such an increased risk may be either qualitative, such as some aspect of the employment which contributes to the risk, or quantitative, such as when the employee is exposed to a common risk more frequently than the general public.” | 6 |
| 6 | Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Commission | green | “if, at the time of the occurrence, the employee was performing acts he was instructed to perform by his employer, acts which he had a common law or statutory duty to perform, or acts which the employee might reasonably be expected to perform incident to his assigned duties.” | 4 |
| 7 | Metropolitan Water Reclamation District v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission | green | “a finding of fact is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only where an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent.” | 4 |
| 8 | Brais v. The Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission | neutral | “the injury had its origin in some risk connected with, or incidental to, the employment so as to create a causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury.” | 3 |
| 9 | Young v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission | green | “when a claimant is injured due to an employment-related risk it is unnecessary to perform a neutral-risk analysis” | 3 |
| 10 | Swartz v. Industrial Commission | green | “for a finding of fact to be against the manifest weight of the evidence, an opposite conclusion must be clearly apparent from the record on appeal.” | 3 |
| 11 | O'Fallon School District No. 90 v. Industrial Commission | green | “claimant sustained the injury at issue while attempting to ensure the safety of a resident at the assisted living facility, an act which claimant might reasonably be expected to perform incident to her assigned duties.” | 2 |
| 12 | First Cash Financial Services v. Industrial Commission | green | “employment-related risks associated with injuries sustained as a consequence of a fall are those to which the general public is not exposed such as the risk of tripping on a defect at the employer's premises, falling on uneven or slippery ground at the work site, or performing s…” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.