Boggs v. Blue Diamond Coal Co.’s Empirical Analysis
590 F.2d 655 · 1979
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 5 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc. (2009), 224 Ill. 2d 274 - Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc. (2007)
33 federal appellate · 5 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 House v. Mine Safety Appliances Co. · 5 N.C. App. 150 - Phillips v. Stowe Mills, Inc. · Poyner v. Lear Siegler, Inc. · Latham v. Technar, Inc.
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] business enterprise has a range of choice in controlling its own corporate structure. But reciprocal obligations arise as a result of the choice it makes. The owners may take advantage of the benefits of dividing the business into separate corporate parts, but principles of reciprocity require that courts also recognize the separate identities of the enterprises when sued by an injured employee.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Workmen's compensation laws were passed before the multi-unit enterprise became the norm in the American economy and before the accompanying managerial revolution in American business ... For this reason, state workmen's compensation laws ... do not address the question of a parent corporation's immunity from common law tort liability for injuries to its subsidiary's employers.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here is no strong reason of compensation policy for destroying common law rights ... [and] every presumption should be on the side of preserving those rights, once basic compensation protection has been assured.... The injured employee has a right to be made wholenot just partly whole.... [A]ll the reasons for making the wrong-doer bear the costs of his wrongdoings still apply, including the moral rightness of this result as well as the salutary effect it tends to have as an incentive to careful conduct and safe work practices.”
2 later decisions 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.