Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 22 Ark. App. 196 - Fowler v. McHenry

22 Ark. App. 196 - Fowler v. McHenry’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
June 2004
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2004

24 state decisions

100198719902000decided

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 Adams Nursing Home of Williamstown, Inc. v. Mathews · Forrest City MacHine Works, Inc. v. Aderhold Ex Rel. Cross County Bank · 10 Ark. App. 28 - Silvicraft, Inc. v. Lambert · Harrison v. Matthews · State ex rel. Moose v. Kansas City & Memphis Railway & Bridge 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The rule by which statutes are construed to operate prospectively does not ordinarily apply to procedural or remedial legislation. “The strict rule of construction contended for does not apply to remedial statutes which do not disturb vested rights, or create new obligations, but only supply a new or more appropriate remedy to enforce an . existing right or obligation. These should receive a more liberal construction, and should be given a retrospective effect whenever such seems to have been the intention of the Legislature.” State ex rel. Moose v. Kansas City & M.RY. & B. Co., 117 Ark. 606 , 174 S.W. 248 [(1914)].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “view and interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the commission and give the testimony its strongest probative force in favor of the action of the commission, whether it favored the claimant or the employer.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “weighed the evidence impartially and without giving the benefit of the doubt to any party in conformity with Act 10 of 1986.”
    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.