State ex rel. Lawson v. Forge’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably 160 Ohio St. 3d 175 - State ex rel. Neitzelt v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion) (2020), State ex rel. Perez v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion) (2016)
63 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
Relies on State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. · 31 Ohio St. 3d 167 - State ex rel. Stephenson v. Industrial Commission · State ex rel. Schultz v. Industrial Commission · State ex rel. Parma Community General Hospital v. Jankowski · State ex rel. Hughes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“How active can a person be and still be deemed eligible for PTD?”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has substantial leeway in both interpreting and drawing inferences from the evidence before it.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“One of the most enduring (though not often explicitly stated) misconceptions about PTD is that once it is granted, the recipient must thereafter remain virtually housebound. This is a fallacy. PTD exempts no one from life's daily demands. Groceries must be purchased and meals cooked. Errands must be run and appointments kept. The yard must be tended and the dog walked. Where children are involved, there may be significant chauffeur time. For some, family and friends shoulder much of the burden. Others, on the other hand, lack such support, leaving the onus of these chores on the PTD claimant. These simple activities can nevertheless often generate considerable controversy. That is because all of these tasks are potentially remunerative. From the school cafeteria to the four-star restaurant, people are paid to prepare meals. People are paid for lawn and child care. Many people earn their living behind the wheel. State ex rel. Parma Comm. Gen. Hosp. v. Jankowski , 95 Ohio St.3d 340 , 2002-Ohio-2336 , 767 N.E.2d 1143 , acknowledged this and cautioned against an automatic disqualification from compensation based on the performance of routine tasks, regardless of their potential for payment. We instead compared the activities with claimant's medical restrictions to determine whether they were so inconsistent as to impeach the medical evidence underlying the disability award.”
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.