Miksch v. Exxon Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
12 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 125th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers and Contractors, Inc. · American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell · East Line & Red River Railroad v. Scott · Trenholm v. Ratcliff · Cincinnati Life Insurance Co. v. Cates
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The summary judgment proof shows Miksch specifically asked [her supervisor] whether her husband’s plan to lease and operate the 43rd Street Chevron would threaten her position with Exxon. [The supervisor’s] response is specific and definite, and when viewed in its proper context, communicates the clear message that Miksch would not be fired for what ordinarily would have violated Exxon’s conflicts policy. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that [the supervisor’s] statement was, as a matter of law, insufficient to modify Miksch’s at-will employment status.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.