Williams v. Munford, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
683 F.2d 938 · 1982
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2005
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. Watts · Big" 2" Engine Rebuilders v. Freeman · McCluskey v. Thompson · 374 So. 2d 241 - Brown v. Estess · West Estate v. Southern Belt, Telephone & Telegraph 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The general rule that emerges ... is that an employer's liability under the Act is not determined by the type of tort inflicted upon an employee but rather is determined by whether the injury arose as a result of a risk created by employment conditions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Generally, Mississippi courts have interpreted [the language of § 71-3-3] broadly, finding coverage so long as three criteria are met: (1) the injury occurred within the time frame of employment; (2) the employee was within the spatial area required by employment at the time of injury; and (3) there existed a causal connection between the activity causing the injury and the interests of the employer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the test of recovery is not a causal relation between the nature of the employment of the injured person and the accident. Nor is it necessary that the employee be engaged at the time of the injury in activity of benefit to the employer. All that is required is that the `obligations or conditions' of employment create a `special zone of danger' out of which the injury arose.”
1 later decision 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.