35 Va. App. 40 - Rios v. Ryan Inc. Central’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1324A (§ 274a of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Feitig v. Chalkley · Fauver v. Bell · Boyd v. Commonwealth · Granados v. Windson Development Corp. · Felix v. State Ex Rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety & Compensation Division
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 27-14-102(a)(vii) expressly lists “aliens authorized to work by the United States department of justice, immigration and naturalization service ” as “employees” who may be covered by workers’ compensation. This specific phrase is meaningless if all aliens are considered “employees” whether authorized to work in this country or not. If the legislature intended that all employed aliens be covered by workers’ compensation it would not have precisely stated that aliens authorized to work here are considered employees. To give effect to all the language in the statute, we conclude that an alien not authorized to work in the United States is not an “employee” under §§ 27-14-102(a)(vii).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.