Beard v. Baum’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
1 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2016
1 district · 22 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that the employee is forced into an involuntary resignation, the employer is as liable for any illegal conduct involved therein as if it had formally discharged the employee.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Beard is excused from grieving his constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims under the CBA because Senkow, his union representative, refused to file a grievance for Beard's allegations of harassment underlying those claims on Beard's behalf. ... . ... Beard could not comply with the grievance procedures established by the CBA because his union representative refused to represent him. Any such attempt would have been futile. Under these circumstances, we hold that Beard is excused from exhausting his remedies under the CBA for his claims of constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Since the superior court erred in concluding that Beard was not excused from exhausting his contractual remedies as to each of these claims, we must reverse the superior court's decision striking the claims unless they are not legally viable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cameron v. Beard“[Bruce Senkow, Beard’s union representative, stated in an affidavit submitted to the court] that Beard had complained to him that his supervisors were harassing him to make his work environment intolerable. Senkow told Beard that he could not pursue the grievance because the actions Bear’d complained of fell under management’s prerogative under Article 5 of the CBA. Under the CBA grievance procedures, Beard could not pursue his grievance past the initial steps without the cooperation of an APEA [Alaska Public Employees Association] representative.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Beard
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.