STATE, DOT v. VE Whitehurst & Sons’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 525 So. 2d 875 - Holloman v. State · 374 So. 2d 490 - Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards · 272 So. 2d 507 - University Plaza Shopping Center, Inc. v. Stewart · 498 So. 2d 882 - Fisher v. Shenandoah General Construction Co. · 374 So. 2d 487 - Charles Poe Masonry, Inc. v. SPRING LOCK SCAFFOLDIND RENTAL EQUIPMENT 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“employers are provided with immunity from suit by their employees so long as the employer has not engaged in any intentional act designed to result in or that is substantially certain to result in injury or death to the employee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Factual determinations ... are not properly determined in a motion to dismiss.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roos v. Morrison“more than a strong probability of injury. It requires virtual certainty.”
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.