Fermo v. Superline Products’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 1999 · most notably Holton v. F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Co. (1981), Jensen v. Zook Bros. Construction Co. (1978)
31 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 Shaffer v. Midland Empire Packing Co. · Rumsey v. Cardinal Petroleum · Midland-Ross Corporation v. Industrial Commission · Travelers Insurance v. McLellan · State Ex Rel. Romero v. District Court of the Eighth Judicial District Ex Rel. County of Cascade
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * a man with a stiffened arm or damaged back or badly weakened eye will presumably have a harder time doing his work well and meeting the competition of young and healthy men. When a man stands before the Workers’ Compensation Court with proven permanent physical injuries, for which the exclusive remedy clause has abolished all possibility of common-law damages, it is not justifiable to tell him he has undergone no impairment of earning capacity, solely on the strength of current pay checks.” Fermo v. Superline Products (1978), 175 Mont. 245 , 574 P.2d 251, 253 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The ultimate objective of the disability test is by discounting the above variables to determine the wage that would have been paid in the open labor market under normal employment conditions to claimant as injured, taking wage levels, hours of work, and claimant's age and state of training as of exactly the same period used for calculating actual wages earned before the injury."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anderson v. Hammer““Unreliability of post-injury earnings may be due to a number of variables: “1. Increase in general wage levels since the accident. “2. Claimant’s own maturity or training. “3. Longer hours worked by the claimant after the accident. “4. Payment of wages disproportionate to capacity to work out of sympathy to claimant.””
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.