Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 349 Mo. 1165 - Kellogg v. Murphy

Kellogg v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

1942

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
9
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Epstein v. Boston Housing Authority (1944), Maryland Unemployment Compensation Board v. Albrecht (1944)

27 state decisions

18019421950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co. · Chas Steward Mach Co v. Davis · Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch · Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court · Loehr v. Starke

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

  1. ““(b) Any individual, firm, corporation or employing unit which acquires the organization, trade, or business, or all of the assets thereof, of an employer, excepting, in any such ease, any assets retained by such employer incident to the liquidation of his obligations, and in respect to which the commission finds that (i) immediately after such change the business and activity of the predecessor employing unit or units are conducted solely through the successor employing unit (ii) after such change, such successor is directly or.indirectly owned or controlled by legally enforceable means by the same interests, as owned or controlled the predecessor employing unit prior to such acquisition (and for the purpose of this subsection, direct or indirect ownership by the same interests of the majority of the voting shares of an employing unit shall, among other things, constitute prima facie evidence of control by legally enforceable means) and (iii) the consideration of such two or more employing units as a single employing unit for the purposes of this section will not tend to defeat or obstruct the object and purpose of this law, shall stand in the position of such predecessor employing unit in all respects, including the predecessor’s separate account, actual contribution and benefit experience, annual payrolls, and liability for current or delinquent contributions, interest and penalty, and contribution rate whether more or less than two and seven-tenths per centum. Provided, t”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Any employing unit which together with one or more other employing units, is owned or controlled (by legally enforcible means or otherwise) directly or indirectly by the same interests, or which owns or controls one or more other employing units (by legally enforcible means or otherwise), and which, if treated as a single unit with such other employing units or interests, or both, would be an employer under paragraph (1) of this subsection;”.”
    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.