Arnold v. Solvay Process Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 1984 · most notably 84 So. 2d 88 - Scalise v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (1955), 189 So. 2d 716 - Mella v. Continental Emsco (1966)
38 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 Carlino v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Harris v. Traders General Ins. Co. · Carpenter v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. · Ulmer v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · Heard v. Receivers of Parker Gravel 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"R.S. 23:1209 provides for two periods of limitation. Initially, it prescribes a period of one year from the date of the accident within which suit must be brought. This prescription is interrupted by the making of compensation payments and it does not begin to run again until after the last compensation payment is made. The other limitation, which was provided by the amendatory Act 29 of 1934, is also a prescription of one year, coupled with a peremption of two years. It declares `Also, where the injury does not result at the time of, or develop immediately after the accident, the limitation shall not take effect until the expiration of one year from the time the injury develops, but in all such cases the claim for payment shall be forever barred unless the proceedings have been begun within two years from the date of the accident.'"”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * the principal reason for our holding in that case that prescription had been interrupted was because the employer had lulled the employee into a false sense of security and had, in a way, misled or at least induced the employee into foregoing or withholding the prosecution of his claim for compensation, *Page 270 and for that reason the employer could not take advantage of his conduct and plead prescription as a bar to the claim for compensation. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the case of Arnold v. Solvay Process Co., supra, the Supreme Court expressed the rule as follows: `Unquestionably the payments there contemplated for tolling the running of the one year limitation are only those made to an employee as, in lieu of, or in the nature of, workmen's compensation, or which may reasonably be considered as such. The statute, in clear and certain language, refers to them as”
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.