Parker v. Ramada Inn’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Paxton v. Union National Bank (1982), 1 Ark. App. 114 - Nibco, Inc. v. Metcalf (1981)
2 federal appellate · 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 Harris v. Daniels · Claim of Watts v. Employment Security Agency · Powell v. Commonwealth
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-514. Disqualification — Discharge for misconduct. (a)(1) If so found by the Director of the Arkansas Employment Security Department, an individual shall be disqualified for benefits if he is discharged from his last work for misconduct in connection with the work. (2) In all cases of discharge for absenteeism, the individual’s attendance record for the twelve-month period immediately preceding the discharge and the reasons for the absenteeism shall be taken into consideration for purposes of determining whether the absenteeism constitutes misconduct. (Italics added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... a single incident of missing work has ordinarily been considered misconduct within the meaning of the employment security laws when the failure to report and appear for work involved a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect... consequently, we cannot say that appellant’s conduct did not, as a matter of law, involve a violation of the standard of behavior that a restaurant operator has a right to expect. ..”
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.