Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 559 A.2d 774 - Ashby v. Rust Engineering Co.

Ashby v. Rust Engineering Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
7
states following
February 2009
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2009

19 state decisions

130198919902000decided

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 Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Coffin v. Hannaford Bros. Co.

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

  1. “We are not dealing here with the traditional fringe benefit arrangement where the employer unilaterally establishes a plan in which the employee may have no vested rights, and contributes an amount that has no specified value per employee or per unit of time worked and that may in fact vary from year to year at the employer’s discretion. Instead, this is a case in which the labor contract specifies an amount that the employer must pay per unit of time worked and the employer totally relinquishes control over the funds just as if they were delivered in the pay envelope.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Under M-K’s collective bargaining agreement with Ragland’s union, a total hourly wage rate is negotiated by the union and M-K. Union members vote to determine how the total wage is divided between cash payments and fringe benefits. The contribution to fringe benefits is thus not speculative, but rather is tied directly to the number of hours worked by the employee. We believe this total hourly wage, no matter how it is apportioned between cash payments and fringe benefits is “the money rate at which the service rendered is recompensed.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “any increase in required contributions to the union-established funds would result in an automatic equivalent reduction in take-home pay.” Id. We noted further that”
    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.