115 Ind. App. 155 - Wolfcale v. Grush’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““If, however, we accept the appellant’s position and assume that the award was based on the appellee’s application, which alleges permanent partial impairment and not temporary total disability, we should bear in mind that the finding in appellant’s favor must be given the same effect as the verdict of the jury or the finding of the court in an ordinary civil action. Kingam & Co., Ltd. v. Ossam (1921), 75 Ind. App. 548 , 121 N. E. 289 . This being so, the question of whether a finding and award is sustained by sufficient evidence must be determined without reference to the appellee’s application and if there is any substantial evidence, unobjected to when introduced, to sustain such finding it is sufficient and the application, if it could have been amended below to conform to the evidence, will be deemed amended accordingly on appeal. Dalton Foundries, Inc. v. Jefferies (1943), 114 Ind. App. 271 , 51 N. E. 2d 13 ; Calumet Paving Co. v. Butkus (1943), 113 Ind. App. 232 , 47 N. E. 2d 829 . We have examined the record and find no instance in which the appellant objected to introduction of evidence on the grounds that it did not tend to prove any issue in the case, and we therefore consider appellee’s application amended to conform to the proof.” See also Peoples Trust Co., Gdn. v. Warner Gear Co. (1923), 80 Ind. App. 401 , 141 N. E. 231 . (Our emphasis.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 131 Ind. App. 279 - Glacier Peat Moss Co. v. BRACKINS

2. “We quite agree with the appellant that, if the appellee’s present hernia is not a recurrence of the first one but on the contrary is a new and distinct injury, there can be no recovery because the undisputed evidence discloses that he suffered the current affliction at a time when he was not in the appellant’s employ. We cannot agree, however, with the contention that there is no evidence tending to prove a recurrence of the original injury .... This testimony, we think, is amply sufficient to support the finding of the ultimate fact that the ap-pellee’s present condition is a recurrence of that for which he was awarded compensation . . . therefore an injury for which the appellant is liable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. E. F. P. Corp. v. Pendill