Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 230 Neb. 460 - McLaughlin v. McLaughlin

McLaughlin v. McLaughlin’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Mendoza v. Omaha Meat Processors · Fees v. Rivett Lumber Co. · Thom v. Lutheran Medical Center & Alexsis, Inc. · State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Shrout · Norris v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.

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

  1. ““Findings of fact made by the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court after rehearing have the same force and effect as a jury verdict in a civil case. [Citations omitted.] In testing the sufficiency of evidence to support findings of fact made by the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court after rehearing, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the successful party. [Citations omitted.] Factual determinations by the Workers’ Compensation Court will not be set aside on appeal unless such determinations are clearly erroneous. Regarding facts determined and findings made after rehearing in the Workers’ Compensation Court, § 48-185 precludes the Supreme Court’s substitution of its view of the facts for that of the Worker’s Compensation Court if the record contains evidence to substantiate the factual conclusions reached by the Workers’ Compensation Court. [Citations omitted.] As the trier of fact, the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given testimony.””
    1 later decision 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.