Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 ARKAPP 216 - Osterhout v. Everett

Osterhout v. Everett’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
8
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2016

17 state decisions

801982199020002010decided

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 Harris v. Daniels · Little Rock Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Commr. of Labor · Guy Gannett Publishing Co. v. Maine Employment Security Commission · Harmon v. Laney · Nicholas v. Board of Review

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.

  1. “Although the Arkansas Employment Security Law is remedial in nature and must be liberally constmed, Harmon v. Laney, 239 Ark. 603 , 393 S.W.2d 273 (1964), the Act must be given an interpretation in keeping with the declaration of state policy, Little Rock Furniture Mfg Co. v. Commissioner of Labor, 227 Ark. 288, 291 , 298 S.W.2d 56 (1947). Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1101 (Repl. 1976) sets forth the State’s public policy of setting unemployment reserves to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own. We cannot say that appellant has become unemployed through no fault of his own since it was appellant’s own action of resignation which set in motion the chain of events which ultimately resulted in his unemployment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “when attempting to hire a replacement or otherwise adjust his work force in response to an employee's notice to quit. [2] The majority also cites Middleton, supra , in which the Arkansas Supreme Court held that where an employee initiates the separation, the employer may accelerate the termination without liability for an involuntary discharge. See Middleton, supra (affirming the employer's acceleration of employee's termination date after she informed the employer that she would be looking for another job, reasoning that the Board could have found the employee said,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A resignation, when voluntary, is essentially an unconditional event the legal significance and finality of which cannot be altered by the measure of time between the employee’s notice and the actual date of departure from the job. An employer who accepts an unequivocal notice of resignation from an employee is entitled to rely upon it ... unless, of course, the employer chooses to return to status quo by rehiring the employee, or accepting a retraction of the notice.”
    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.