Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 15 McCanless 347 - Baxter v. Smith

Baxter v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
3
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Lock v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. (1991), 149 N.C. App. 961 - Shockley v. Cairn Studios Ltd. (2002)

37 state decisions

110196219701980199020002010decided

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 Swift & Co. v. Howard · Coleman v. Coker · Evans's Case · Marks v. Bettendorf's, Inc. · Claim of Anderson v. Babcock & Wilcox 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “liable for disability resulting from injuries sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment even though it aggravates a previous condition with resulting disability far greater than otherwise would have been the case.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘Where incapacity results from the combined effect of several distinct personal injuries, received during the successive periods of coverage of different insurers, the result is not an apportionment of responsibility nor responsibility on the part of either or any insurer at the election of the employee. The implication of the act is that only one of successive insurers is to make compensation for one and the same incapacity.... Where there have been several compensable injuries, received during the successive periods of coverage of different insurers, the subsequent incapacity must be compensated by the one which was the insurer at the time of the most recent injury that bore causal relation to the incapacity.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““If we comply with the averments in the bill and allow a recovery on a fifty-fifty basis then this might or might not serve equity. The futility of proper apportionment of liability for separate injuries or aggravation of pre-existing injuries is obvious and if applied would result in mere speculation by the Court.” Id. at 364 , 364 S.W.2d at 944 .”
    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.