Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 931 SW2D 877 - Bartsch v. Moore

Bartsch v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
November 2011
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2011

7 state decisions

50199620002010decided

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

Relies on Garden View Care Center, Inc. v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission · Campbell v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission · Business Centers of Missouri, Inc. v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission · Massey v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission · Francis Howell School District v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission, Division of Employment Security

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

  1. “[Misconduct within the meaning of an unemployment compensation act excluding from its benefits an employee discharged for misconduct must be an act of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer’s interest, a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) That the commission acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) That the decision was procured by fraud; (3) That the facts found by the commission do not support the award; or (4) That there was no sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award.”
    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.