Stapleton v. M.D. Limbaugh Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 state decisions

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

1. “Baldwin [Co. v. Maner, 224 Ark. 348 , 273 S.W.2d 28 (1954) ] and Brothers [v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co., 217 Ark. 632 , 232 S.W.2d 646 (1950) ] dealt with the constitutionality of section 402, and not section 105, as is challenged in this case. However, these cases are helpful to the resolution of our issue because they establish that the General Assembly may limit tort liability only when there is an employment relationship between the parties. As previously discussed, the prime contractor in this case is not the statutory employer pursuant to section 402 because the subcontractor paid workers’ compensation benefits to its injured employee. As mentioned in Baldwin, because there is no real or quasi-employment relationship between Stapleton and Limbaugh Construction under the facts of this case, the legislature cannot, pursuant to Article 5, Section 32, limit Stapleton’s right to recover tort damages against Limbaugh. This result is equitable because under the facts of this case Stapleton cannot recover workers’ compensation benefits from Limbaugh under section 402 because Limbaugh is not the statutory employer. Stapleton also cannot recover tort damages from Limbaugh because section 105, as amended in 1993, gives the prime contractor absolute immunity from tort actions. Thus, Stapleton has no remedy against Limbaugh for its alleged negligence. For these reasons, we hold that Ark. Code Ann. § ll-9-105(a), as amended by 1993 Ark. Acts 796 , § 4, is unconstitutional as applied i”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Myers v. Yamato Kogyo Co. · 2009 Ark. App. 755 - Johnson v. Arkansas Steel Erectors

2. “The General Assembly shall have power to enact laws prescribing the amount of compensation to be paid by employers for injuries to or death of employees, and to whom said payment shall be made. It shall have power to provide the means, methods, and forum for adjudicating claims arising under said laws, and for securing payment of same. Provided, that otherwise no law shall be enacted limiting the amount to be recovered for injuries resulting in death or for injuries to persons or property; and in case of death from such injuries the right of action shall survive, and the General Assembly shall prescribe for whose benefit such action shall be prosecuted.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Myers v. Yamato Kogyo Co. · 2009 Ark. App. 755 - Johnson v. Arkansas Steel Erectors

3. “acting in [their] capacity as an employer”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Myers v. Yamato Kogyo Co.