Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 Ark. 1 - Allen v. Kizer

Allen v. Kizer’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Anderson v. State (2004), Irvin v. State (2001)

53 state decisions

24019871990200020102020decided

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 Kohlenberger, Inc. v. Tyson's Foods, Inc. · Matthews v. Rodgers · Neal v. Oliver · King v. Cardin · Cammack v. Chalmers

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

  1. “[The] reasoning has usually been that since an employer is immune under the statutes from a negligent failure to provide employees with a safe place to work, the same immunity protects supervisory employees when their general duties involve the overseeing and discharging of that same responsibility.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In DeClerk v. Tribble, 276 Ark. 316 , 637 S.W.2d 526 (1982), the attorney prepared an answer, but he put it in a place where it was covered by other papers, and as a result, it was not discovered until four days after its due date. We held that the trial judge abused his discretion in condoning such negligence by refusing to grant a default judgment. We stated, “If such carelessness is excusable, then any attorney can shift the responsibility for filing any pleading to his secretary by simply dictating the pleading and dismissing the [matter] from his mind.” We see no basic difference in DeClerk and this case. If the attorney believed that the problem with the associate was of such importance that it demanded his full attention, he could have delegated the responsibility for filing to another attorney in the firm, who would have understood the necessity of a timely filing. Instead, he merely failed to take any action on the matter. The fact that the answer was filed only one day late is of no consequence whatsoever. We state without reservation that the attorney of the employees responsible for the late filing failed to show excusable neglect, unavoidable casualty, or other just cause. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the attorney’s conduct was excusable and, thus, in allowing the answer to be filed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Even assuming appellee was somehow negligent in driving his vehicle, he is immune from suit because under the facts of this case providing transportation from the employer-designated parking area to the job site involves the duty to provide a safe place to work.”
    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.