Magner v. Kinney’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
2 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably 170 W. Va. 162 - Lee-Norse Co. v. Rutledge (1982), Sakrison v. Pierce (1947)
2 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 Keith Theatre Inc. v. Vachon · Philip Henrici Co. v. Alexander · Maier v. Romatzki · Clark v. Neumann
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * In other words, the technical meaning of the term, ‘stoppage of work’ as used in our disqualification clause, is a substantial curtailment of work in an establishment, .not the cessation of work by the claimant or claimants. The language of our unemployment compensation law quoted above (referring to a section identical with our 56-1005 (b)) was a substantial reenactment of the English National Insurance Act of 1911. See ¡statutes 1-2 Geo. V, ch. 55, sec. 87, which was amended in 1924 by section 4(1), ch. 30, Statutes 14-15, Geo. V. This language, it appears, had received a settled construction (the same as that given by the Nebraska Court) by the English authorities charged with the administration of this English act long prior to the adoption of it by ourselves.” (Explanatory inserts supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““All truckers who belonged to the Nebraska Truckers Association (of which the Fidelity Storage & Can Company was one) had a contract with the drivers union ‘last year’ relating to wages, terms and conditions of employment. This contract expired in June, 1938. When the contract expired negotiations were opened to modify the contract, and there was an agreement between union officials who represented claimants herein and the truckers association that the old contract and its terms should remain in force pending negotiations. These negotiations continued until in September following, when disagreement over the demand of the employees for a ‘closed shop’ contract resulted in the strike order of September 13, 1938. It is obvious that a labor dispute existed between these parties from and after June, 1938. This ripened into a strike in September, 1938. The Act does not require consideration of the demands, negotiations and other events which preceded the final rupture, except for the purpose of determining whether they constituted a labor dispute.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A labor dispute may produce a stoppage or curtailment of work in an employing establishment in three ways: (1) The cessation of work by all or part of the employees; (2) the cessation of work by a part of the employees may disable the employer from utilizing the services of other employees; (3) it may diminish patronage by customers or the public of the employing establishment and thereby produce a compensating unemployment of workers. In either event the resulting unemployment is due to a stoppage of work because of the labor dispute. Obviously, if those leaving work are immediately replaced, or if the dispute does not otherwise interfere with production or operation and these are not diminished, there is no stoppage of work and hence no disqualification.”
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.