120 Ind. App. 339 - Moore v. Staton’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Cole v. Sheehan Construction Company · 82 Ind. App. 552 - Northern Indiana Power Co. v. Hawkins · 120 Ind. App. 47 - Guevara v. Inland Steel Co. · International Detrola Corporation v. Hoffman
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If an employee has sustained a permanent injury either in another employment, or from other cause or causes than the employment in which he received a subsequent permanent injury by accident, such as specified in section 31 (§40-1303), he shall be entitled to compensation for the subsequent permanent injury in the same amount as if the previous injury had not occurred; provided, however, that if the permanent injury for which compensation is claimed, results only in the aggravation or increase of a previously sustained permanent injury or physical condition, regardless of the source or cause of such previously sustained injury or physical condition, the board shall determine the extent of the previously sustained permanent injury or physical condition, as well as the extent of the aggravation or increase resulting from the subsequent permanent injury, and shall award compensation only for that part of such injury, or physical condition resulting from the subsequent permanent injury. Provided further, however, that amputation of any part of the body or loss of any or all of the vision of one or both eyes shall be con sidered as a permanent injury or physical condition.” §40-1305, Burns’ 1952 Repl. (Acts 1945, ch. 284, §2, p. 1261.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The statute was amended in 1945 and is a distinct departure from the law as it existed before its amendment. Under the former law, the sum total of the prior condition and the increase or aggravation thereof by a subsequent injury was compensable. The amendment is contained in the first proviso found in the above section and the facts in this case present a case clearly within the provisions within the amendment. “The appellee had sustained former injuries that had resulted in permanent partial impairment in his left arm and this condition existed before the accident referred to in the appellee’s application. “The Full Industrial Board, however, failed to find and determine the extent of the previously sustained permanent injury or physical condition and likewise failed to find and determine the extent of the increase thereof caused by the accidental injuries referred to in appellee’s application herein. “This cause is remanded to the Industrial Board of Indiana and said board is directed to discharge its statutory duty by making findings on the essential facts, and by entering an award based thereon.”
1 later decision 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.