Swanson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2006
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 22 Cal. 3d 198 - Armistead v. State Personnel Board · Dinneen v. Finch · Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Shop · Webster v. Potlatch Forests, Inc. · Avery v. B & B RENTAL TOILETS
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.
“Misconduct, which will disqualify a claimant from receiving employment benefits under the Employment Security Act, includes a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his employee. While an employer has a right to expect that his employees will not engage in protracted argument after an order or directive is given to an employee, yet he cannot expect that his employees will at all times be absolutely docile or servile. The findings of the Industrial Commission characterize appellant’s conduct in the telephone conversation with his employer as not accepting the employer’s explanation, expressing unhappiness and, according to his employer he ‘blew his stack.’ The expression used by the employer were ‘blowing up’ and ‘blowing his cork.’ These expressions are slang conclusions. The attitude or temperament of appellant in the conversation was as follows: Q. What was the tone of his voice on the phone? A. What was ... Q. Was he yelling at you, or talking or ...? A. He was very nervous, it was above average. Q. How your wife fights with you sometimes? A. Something like that. The employer described appellant as a good worker, up to the time of the incident of appellant’s firing. No evidence was introduced of other incidents of a similar nature prior to this one occurrence. There was no evidence that appellant used vulgar or abusive language during the conversation. In their relationship, neither the employer nor the employee had an intermediary. ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[E]vidence, uncontradicted, must be accepted as true.”
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.