Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 286 Ark. 458 - Miller v. Ensco, Inc.

Miller v. Ensco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
6
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Deitsch v. Tillery (1992), Angle v. Alexander (1997)

4 federal appellate · 38 state decisions

1601985199020002010decided

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 Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. · 27 Cal. 3d 465 - Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court · Simmons & Simmons Construction Co. v. W. L. Rea D.B.A. W. L. Rea Construction Co. · Heskett v. Fisher Laundry & Cleaners Co. · Simmons First National Bank v. Thompson

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

  1. “. . . that show the employer committed acts with an ‘actual, specific, and deliberate intent to . . . injure the employee,’ in the nature of an intentional act by an employer who assaults his employee. There were no facts alleged to show the appellee had a ‘desire’ to bring about the consequences of the acts or that the acts were premeditated with the specific intent to injure the appellant. . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"[I]t is the nature of the acts complained of that determines the cause of action. Here, the [employer's] failure to warn of dangers or failure to provide safe conditions, deliberately placing [the employee] in a dangerous position and wilfully violating governmental regulations, does not bring the cause of action within the ambit of an intentional tort."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “involv[ing] consequences which the actor believes are substantially certain to follow his actions.”
    2 later decisions 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.