Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 161 N.J. 178 - Kibble v. Weeks Dredging & Construction Co.

Kibble v. Weeks Dredging & Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
3
states following
May 2020
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 5 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, Inc. v. Christodoulou (2004), 368 N.J. Super. 237 - Gershon v. Regency Diving Center (2004)

4 federal appellate · 5 district · 31 state decisions

2101999200020102020decided

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 Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors · Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc. · Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc. · Buttermore v. Aliquippa Hospital · State v. Afanador

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

  1. “[b]alanced against [the factors of reasonable reliance, the purpose of the rule, and the rule’s impact] is our belief that those responsible for effecting a change in the law should benefit from their efforts. Accordingly, we have recognized that purely prospective rulings fail'to reward litigants for their efforts and fail to further the broader goal of providing an inducement to challenge existing interpretations of the law. It has long been our position that fundamental fairness generally requires that champions of the cause should be rewarded for their effort and expense in challenging existing law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “the vast majority of states [have held that] a dependent's right to seek worker[s'] compensation death benefits is not affected by a lump-sum settlement agreement between an injured worker and that worker's employer”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “our Wrongful Death Act is remedial in nature and is designed `to compensate surviving dependents for the pecuniary losses resulting from the death' of, in many cases, the `breadwinner'”
    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.