Gepner v. Fujicolor Processing, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2022
23 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 Schlagenhauf v. Holder · Hofsommer v. Hofsommer Excavating, Inc. · First National Bank of Crosby v. Bjorgen · Suburban Sales & Service, Inc. v. District Court of Ramsey County · Follman v. Upper Valley Special Education Unit
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' A motion to vacate a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(i) lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has abused its discretion. An- abuse of discretion by the trial -court is never assumed; - the burden is on the party seeking relief to affirmatively establish it. The trial court abuses its discretion only when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner. A trial court hcts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process by which the facts'and law relied upon are stated and considered together for the purpose of achieving- a reasoned and reasonable determination. We will not overturn the trial court’s decision merely because it is not the one we may have madé if we were deciding the motion. This Court has emphasized that N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) is to be liberally construed and applied, and trial courts should be more lenient in granting motions to vacate default judgments than in vacating judgments in cases which have been tried on their merits. The relevant factors were summarized, in CUNA Mortgage v. Aafedt, 459 N.W.2d 801, 803 (N.D.1990) (citations omitted): This court .has long encouraged trial courts to be more lenient when entertaining Rule 60(b) motions to vacate default judgments as distinguished from “litigated” judgments, that is, judgments entered after trial on the merits. While a trial court certain”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“An employee whose employer is in violation of section 65-04-33, who has been injured in the course of employment, or the employee’s dependents or legal representatives in case death has ensued, may file an application with the organization for an award of compensation under this title and in addition may maintain a civil action against the employer for damages resulting from the injury or death. In the action, the employer may not assert the common-law defenses of: 1. The fellow servant rule. 2. Assumption of risk. 3. Contributory negligence. The organization is subrogated to the recovery made in the action against the uninsured employer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The civil action created under N.D.C.C. § 65-09-02 is in the nature of a tort action, and allows the employee to recover damages resulting from the injury. The legislative history to the 1995 -amendment to N.D.C.C.§ 65-09-02, which created the separate civil action against the noncomplying employer, clarifies that it is a personal injury lawsuit, not limited to the remedies available under the Workers Compensation Act: The Bill provides that an employee of an uninsured employer may file and receive workers compensation benefits and in addition may maintain a lawsuit against the uninsured employer for damages caused by the injury. ... The threat of personal injury lawsuits and potentially large damage awards should provide uninsured employers with ample incentive to request and pay for the protections of workers compensation coverage and the exclusive remedy, instead of taking their chances on being uninsured. Hearing, on H.B. 1329 Before the House Industry, Business and Labor Comm., 54th N.D. Legis, Sess. (Jan. 23, 1995) .(testimony of Robert W. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, representing the Workers Compensation Bureau). Accordingly, under N.D.C.C. § 65-09-02, a noncomplying employer is liable in a civil, action for all damages resulting from .the work injury, and those dam.ages are to be determined under the standards and measures applicable in traditional tort-based personal injury actions.”
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.