18 Va. App. 125 - Eppling v. Schultz Dining Programs’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably 45 Va. App. 72 - Artis v. Ottenberg's Bakers, Inc. (2005), 18 Va. App. 629 - Potomac Edison Co. of Virginia, Inc. v. Cash (1994)
26 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 American Furniture Co. v. Doane · Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Watson · 13 Va. App. 328 - Cox v. Commonwealth · Marval Poultry Co., Inc. v. Johnson · 17 Va. App. 594 - Timbrook v. O'Sullivan Corp.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A “justified” discharge (one which warrants forever barring reinstatement of workers’ compensation benefits) does not simply mean that the employer can identify or assign a reason attributable to the employee as the cause for his or her being discharged. Whether the reason for the discharge is for “cause,” see Murphy, 12 Va.App. at 639 , 406”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[we] held that the Murphy forfeiture rule does not apply to an employee who was discharged for failing to notify her employer that she would be absent from selective employment that she had refused. Because the employee had refused, or not accepted, the employer's offer of selective employment, her termination following three consecutive absences was "not for cause or for misconduct, as in Murphy , [which would] justify a forfeiture of her compensation benefits that could never be cured." [ Timbrook, 17 Va.App. at 598 , 439 S.E.2d at 876 ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]hen a non-work-related disability prevents a partially disabled employee from returning to his or her pre-injury work or from accepting selective employment, for purposes of the Act, the unrelated disability is not justification for the employee to refuse or not to perform selective employment or to fail to market his or her residual work capacity. Thus, the inability of a disabled employee to do selective work or to market his or her residual capacity due to an unrelated disability is equivalent to an unjustified refusal of selective employment.”
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.