869 So. 2d 459 - Ex Parte Progress Rail Services Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Except as provided in this chapter [ie., the Act], no employee of any employer subject to [the Act], nor the personal representative, surviving spouse, or next of kin of the employee shall have a right to any other method, form, or amount of compensation or damages for an injury or death occasioned by an accident or occupational disease proximately resulting from and while engaged in the actual performance of the duties of his or her employment and from a cause originating in such employment or determination thereof.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beard v. Mobile Press Register, Inc. · Cason v. Miller

2. “exclude all other rights and remedies of the employee, his or her personal representative, parent, dependent, or next of kin, at common law, by statute, or otherwise”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. Beaulieu Group, LLC · Beard v. Mobile Press Register, Inc.

3. “[W]e cannot agree with the [employee’s descendants] that it “stands to reason” that, because the Legislature has imposed a statutory duty on employers to provide their employees with a safe place to work, an injured employee can maintain an action against an employer for a breach of that duty even though the injury is fully covered under the Act, with that action to be exempt from what this Court has declared to be the “complete immunity” provided to an employer for such injuries. It certainly can be argued that the Legislature manifested an entirely different intent in 1992’when it completely rewrote § 25-5-11 so as to specifically provide that various parties, exclusive of the employer, could be sued for willful conduct. The Legislature’s so specifying as to various nonemployer parties, but providing no corresponding “limited” immunity for employers that would modify the “complete” immunity employers had previously been declared to enjoy, suggests that the Legislature intended to leave unaltered the nature of employer immunity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Harris v. Beaulieu Group, LLC