Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 208 S.C. 39 - Halks v. Rust Engineering Co.

Halks v. Rust Engineering Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1946

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2012

15 state decisions

4019461950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “[Halks’s] claim in the instant case included not only compensation for temporary total disability, but also for any permanent disability or disfigurement. This claim has never reached a final hearing. There has been only an agreement as to compensation for temporary total disability. Neither permanent disability nor disfigurement has ever been considered. ... [W]e do not think the right of a claimant to further compensation can be adjudicated without notice to him and an opportunity afforded for a hearing, if he desires to contest the issue. ... “A Claim for compensation lawfully constituted and pending before the commission may not be dismissed without a hearing and without some proper form of final adjudication. No statute of limitations runs against a litigant while his case is pending in court.” ... [C]ases before the Industrial Commission “should be disposed of by some award, order, or judgment final in its effect, terminating the litigation.” We conclude that [Halks’s] claim for compensation was still pending before the Industrial Commission when it made the award in question. Viewing the matter in this light, we think it is clear that Section 46 is not applicable. [Halks] is not seeking to increase or modify a previous award on the ground of a change in condition, but is asking for a final determination of his original claim____ The situation is analogous to that of a case pending in court which is allowed to remain on the calendar for a long period of time without eit”
    2 later decisions 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.