Cherry v. Chustz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We note initially that the statute [Article 8306, section 3a] seems to state that ... an injured employee is barred from suing any of his employers if he is also the employee of a subscriber. We doubt that the legislature intended to enact so inexplicable a scheme, but we need not attempt to clarify this provision in this case. Instead, we hold that, in addition to being Thomas Cherry’s “employer” under the statute, Chustz has also shown as a matter of law that he was a “sub scriber” under the statute. (Emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zavala-Nava v. A.C. Employment, Inc.

2. “(a) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued ... (b) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Perez v. Lear Siegler, Inc.

3. “[T]here is no reason why an employer cannot contractually provide for payment of premiums on his employees by a third-party acting on his behalf.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. Razor Enterprises, Inc.