Brock v. Mutual Reports, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2013
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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 Eisenstadt v. Baker · Rudman v. Cowles Communications, Inc. · Harsh v. Illinois Terminal Railroad · Wilson v. McClenny · Annette Heyman, Individually v. Robert S. Kline
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In every employment contract, the employee promises either expressly or by implication that he or she will perform the work in a diligent and reasonably skillful manner. . . . An employer, therefore, may discharge an employee who fails to perform his or her duties accordingly. . . . This rule is based on the practical consideration that an employer cannot be expected to retain an employee who is inefficient and cannot competently perform the job for which he or she was hired.” Id. at 152-53 (citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[s]light or occasional omissions do not constitute incompetent conduct justifying dismissal; thus, the proper test for determining whether an employer can be held liable for terminating an employee's contract is whether the conduct is so inconsistent with the employer-employee relationship that it prejudices a valid business interest of the employer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When an employee contracts to fill a particular position any material change in duties or significant reduction in rank will constitute a constructive discharge which, if unjustified, is a breach of contract.” 397 A.2d at 152 .”
2 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.