Pierce v. Franklin Electric Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Burk v. K-Mart Corp. (1989), Buckner v. General Motors Corp. (1988)
6 federal appellate · 25 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
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 948A
Relies on 22 Cal. 3d 658 - Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · 140 Ill. App. 3d 618 - Slover v. Brown · Claim of Duncan v. New York State Developmental Center · 192 N.J. Super. 403 - Galante v. Sandoz, Inc. · 196 N.J. Super. 568 - Galante v. Sandoz, 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"You are further instructed that the applicable statutes do not prohibit an employer such as Defendant from discharging an employee such as Plaintiff because the employee is absent from work, even when the absence is caused by compensated injury and medical treatment. Also, Defendant may show that the Plaintiffs discharge was for additional legitimate non-retaliatory reasons, such as Plaintiffs inability to perform assigned duties, Plaintiffs job abandonment and/or Plaintiffs bad faith pursuit of a Workers' Compensation claim.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he compensation benefits provided by the Act protect workers. The principle underlying the system is insurance. An employer is responsible for bodily injuries suffered by his employees in the course of their employment regardless of fault or any wrongful conduct by him. An employee who is discharged during a period of temporary disability does not lose the compensation benefits to which he is otherwise entitled. The Act does not suggest that termination would relieve an employer of responsibility for the employee’s medical care and disability payments. Similarly, rehabilitation does not depend on employment status. Pierce v. Franklin Elec. Co., supra at 924.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“certified question presents inability to return to work as the sole reason for a temporarily disabled employee's discharge.”
2 later decisions 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.