Bailey v. Lockheed Martin Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Woodson v. Rowland · 603 So. 2d 824 - O'CAIN v. Harvey Freeman and Sons, Inc. · Miller v. McRae's, Inc. · 374 So. 2d 241 - Brown v. Estess · 414 So. 2d 437 - Entex, Inc. v. McGuire
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ t]he employer’s conduct may have been reckless, negligent, or grossly negligent, but that [is] not enough to remove this case as an “intentional tort” from the exclusivity of the [Act]. This Court has held repeatedly that the employer’s ac tion must be done “with an actual intent to injure the employee,” and that “an intentional tort is an act of intentional behavior designed to bring about the injury.” We do not today choose to expand this Court’s interpretation of what constitutes an intentional tort exception.! 41 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.