Intercraft Industries Corp. v. Morrison’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. (1985), Williams v. Burlington Industries, Inc. (1986)
3 federal appellate · 94 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 Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck · In Re Watson · 17 N.C. App. 340 - In Re Collingsworth · State Ex Rel. Employment Security Commission v. Jarrell · 175 Pa. Super. 261 - Kelleher Unemployment Compensation Case
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a reason which would be deemed by reasonable men and women valid and not indicative of an unwillingness to work.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) whether there was evidence before the Commission to support its findings of fact; and (2) whether the facts found support the Commission’s conclusions of law and resulting decision.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(2) . . . if it is determined by the Commission that such individual is, at the time such claim is filed, unemployed because [s]he was discharged for misconduct connected with [her] work. Misconduct connected with the work is defined as conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of [the] employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to [the] employer.”
3 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.