Union Mining Co. v. Blank’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2001
2 district · 16 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 Victory Sparkler & Specialty Co. v. Francks · City of San Francisco v. Industrial Accident Commission · Matter of Connelly v. Hunt Furniture Co. · Schemmel v. T. B. Gatch & Sons Contracting & Building Co. · Foble v. Knefely
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have a substantial basis of knowledge relating to legislative intent in the initial passage of the Work[er]’s Compensation Act by which benefits for disabilities from accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of employment were provided. We know that the Legislature thought that industrial disabilities under the rules of the common law and the statutes antecedent to enactment of the Work[er]’s Compensation Act cast “an unequal burden” that should be “more fairly distributed.” We also know that the passage of the Work[er]’s Compensation Act was intended to withdraw extra-hazardous [9] employments “from private controversy”; to provide “sure and certain relief for work[ers] injured” in such employments and “their families and dependents,” “regardless of questions of fault and to the exclusion of every other remedy, except as provided in this Act.” (footnote omitted). (Preamble, ch. 465, Acts of 1939). We believe that the legislative purpose in the passage of the initial Occupational Disease Act (eh. 465, Acts of 1939) was to bring within the purview of the Work[er]’s Compensation Act disability caused by specified occupational diseases produced by the workplace environment without change in the basic social aspects of the law and we attribute to the 1939 Legislature the same high ideals and the same high social aims that motivated the Legislature of 1914.”
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.