Stamper v. Hiteshew’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 8 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Ferris presented evidence strongly supporting a finding that the Union’s acts were specifically targeted at her and not neutral in nature. Moreover, as in Ba-tel, the evidence implies that Valdez specifically chose Ferris as his victim, unlike the circumstances in In re Question, where the plaintiff was the victim of a rape and where the parties agreed there was no private motivation for the attack. Thus, as in Stamper , there exists a genuine factual controversy regarding the requisite degree of job relatedness for workers’ compensation coverage, and the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs claims on this ground.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Anderson v. Save-A-Lot, Ltd. · 58 F. Supp. 2d 1223 - Padron v. WACKENHUT SERVICES, LLC.

2. “Here, unlike the circumstances in [ In re Tolbert ], in which the parties agreed that there was not private motivation for the attack, the complaint implies that [the supervisor perpetrator] specifically chose [the plaintiff] as his victim and that both he and [another supervisor] may have mistreated her because some two years previously [this second supervisor] had successfully initiated a private sexual relationship with [the plaintiff]. In light of these factual circumstances, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that [the plaintiff's] injuries arose out of her employment nor, therefore, that she can prove no set of facts to exempt her from the exclusivity provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Anderson v. Save-A-Lot, Ltd.

3. “An injury arises out of the employment if it would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of the employment placed claimant in the position where he was injured. ... This theory supports compensation, for example, in cases of stray bullets, roving lunatics, and other situations in which the only connection of the employment with the injury is that its obligations placed the employee in the particular place at the particular time when he or she was injured by some neutral force....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Horodyskyj v. Karanian