Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 150 F.3d 1286 - Vice v. Conoco, Inc.

Vice v. Conoco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

150 F.3d 1286 · 1998

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2017

6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

60199820002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Applied Genetics International, Inc. v. First Affiliated Securities, Inc. · Vitkus v. Beatrice Co. · Kaul v. Stephan · Burk v. K-Mart Corp. · Wilder v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce

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

  1. “[f]actors which have been isolated as critical to evaluate whether an implied contract right to job security exists are: (a) evidence of some “separate consideration” beyond the employee’s services to support the implied term, (b) longevity of employment, (c) employer handbooks and policy manuals, (d) detrimental reliance on oral assurances, pre-employment interviews, company policy and past practices and (e) promotions and commendations.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Courts ‘must distinguish between carefully developed employer representations upon which an employee may justifiably rely, and general platitudes, vague assurances, praise, and indefinite promises of permanent continued employment.’ ” Hayes, 905 P.2d at 783 (quoting Hinson, 742 P.2d at 560 (Kauger, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). Therefore, “unless an employee at-will can prove substantive restrictions on the employer’s power to discharge, the -employment must be considered to be terminable at will.” Id. (citing Blanton v. Housing Auth., 794 P.2d 412, 415 (Okla.1990)).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]f the alleged promises are nothing more than vague assurances, . . . , the issue can be decided as a matter of law.”
    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.