Vigil v. Arzola’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 34 district · 97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Burk v. K-Mart Corp. (1989), Melnick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (1988)
4 federal appellate · 34 district · 97 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monroe v. Pape · Blum v. Yaretsky · Rendell-Baker v. Kohn · 74 Ill. 2d 172 - Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. · 27 Cal. 3d 167 - Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““For an employee to recover under this new cause of action, he must demonstrate that he was discharged because he performed an act that public policy has authorized or would encourage, or because he refused to do something required of him by his employer that public policy would condemn.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Because this new cause of action imposes significant new duties, and because of reliance on the long-standing terminable-at-will rule, we hold that the new law should be given modified prospective application. [Citation omitted.] Thus, we apply the law announced to the case before us, except as to punitive damages, and to prospective cases filed after the date this decision becomes final.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In view of present economic conditions and the need to encourage job security, we believe that a cause of action should exist when the discharge of an employee contravenes some clear mandate of public policy. We do not abrogate the at will rule; we only limit its application to those situations where the employee’s discharge results from the employer’s violation of a clear public policy.”
3 later decisions 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.