Moore v. Reeves’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2017
17 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 527 So. 2d 102 - Reed v. Brunson · United States Fire Insurance Co. v. McCormick · Alabama Industrial Bank v. State Ex Rel. C. E. Avinger · 359 So. 2d 785 - Grantham v. Denke · 348 So. 2d 1349 - Childers v. Couey
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]he terms `safety device' and `safety guard' mean an invention or contrivance intended to protect against injury, damage, or loss that [ensures] or gives security that an accident will be prevented. Therefore, for purposes of construing these terms within § 25-5-11 (c)(2), we hold that a `safety device' or `safety guard' is that which is provided, principally, but not exclusively, as protection to an employee, which provides some shield between the employee and danger so as to prevent the employee from incurring injury while he is engaged in the performance of the service required of him by the employer: it is not something *Page 1079 that is a component part of the machine whose principal purpose is to facilitate or expedite the work."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The legislature finds that actions filed on behalf of injured employees against . . . employees of the same employer seeking to recover damages in excess of amounts received or receivable from the employer under the workers' compensation statutes of this state . . . are contrary to the intent of the legislature in adopting a comprehensive workers' compensation scheme and are producing a debilitating and adverse effect upon efforts to retain existing, and to attract new industry to this state. . . . The existence of such causes of action has a disruptive effect upon the relationship among employees and supervisory and management personnel. . . . The intent of the legislature is to provide complete immunity to employers and limited immunity to officers, directors, agents, servants or employees of the same employer . . ., from civil liability for all causes of action except those based on willful conduct and such immunity is an essential aspect of the workers' compensation scheme. The legislature hereby expressly reaffirms its intent . . . regarding the exclusivity of the rights and remedies of an injured employee, except as provided for herein."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“removal from a machine of a safety guard or safety device”
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.