Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 ARKAPP 223 - Basford v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

Basford v. Weyerhaeuser Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
September 1990
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Bankston v. Prime West Corp. · 10 Ark. App. 254 - Central Maloney, Inc. v. York · Sunbeam Corp. v. Bates · Weldon v. Town Properties, Inc. · Arkansas Secretary of State v. Guffey

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

  1. “At least since 1980, the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission and this court have recognized the Commission’s authority to make awards for current-total disability to be followed by periods of permanent-partial disability. See Sunbeam Corp. v. Bates, 271 Ark. 385 , 609 S.W.2d 102 (Ark. App. 1980). The Court of Appeals reaffirmed this concept in Guffey v. Arkansas Secretary of State, 18 Ark. App. 54 , 710 S.W.2d 836 (1986). However, on April 13, 1987, the supreme court reversed our decision in Guffey and all prior decisions on that issue, declaring that our law does not authorize or recognize current-total disability benefits after the end of the healing period. Arkansas Secretary of State v. Guffey, 291 Ark. 624 , 727 S.W.2d 826 (1987). In 1983, when the Commission ordered current-total disability benefits in this case, both the Commission and this court recognized the validity of such orders. The order was not appealed from and it became final and its terms binding on all parties. In 1985, when that period of current-total disability was terminated, the Commission should have applied the rules then in effect and judicially sanctioned. We conclude that the Commission under its own order was without authority to retroactively remit payments made for current-total disability or direct that they be treated as payments toward a future award of permanent-total disability.”
    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.