Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 226 ARK 447 - Runkle v. Fuess

Runkle v. Fuess’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
May 1974
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Van Winkle v. Satterfield · School Dist. No. 65 of Randolph County v. Wright

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

  1. “The burden of proof is on the employer to show that the servant might have obtained similar employment, for the failure of the servant to obtain other employment does not affect the right of action, but only goes in reduction of damages, and if nothing else is shown "the servant is entitled to recover the contract price, upon proving the employer's violation of the contract, and his own willingness to perform." The fact that the servant might have obtained new employment does not constitute a defense. It is one of the facts to be considered in estimating the servant's loss.”
    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.