Glass v. Edens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

123 state decisions

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

1. “The key to the understanding of this problem is the recognition, at the outset, that the disability concept is a blend of two ingredients, whose recurrence in different proportions gives rise to most controversial disability questions: the first ingredient is disability in the medical or physical sense, as evidenced by obvious loss of members or by medical testimony that the claimant simply cannot make the necessary muscular movements and exertions; the second ingredient is de facto inability to earn wages, as evidenced by proof that claimant has not in fact earned anything.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 64 Ark. App. 221 - Sapp v. Phelphs Trucking, Inc. · 54 Ark. App. 115 - Foxx v. American Transportation

2. ““...Ark. Stats., § 81-1313 (d), provides: ‘A permanent partial disability not scheduled in subsection (c) hereof shall be apportioned to the body as a whole, which shall have a value of 450 weeks, and there shall be paid compensation to the injured employee for the proportionate loss of use of the body as a whole resulting from the injury.’ Appellees contend that this amended section of the Workmen’s Compensation Act makes all injuries scheduled injuries and that an injured employee should only be paid for functional loss of use of his body. We feel the Legislature’s use of the term ‘loss of use of the body as. a whole’ in Ark. Stats., § 81-1313 (cl), when read in the light of other sections of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, which are not in conflict therewith, does not mean merely functional disability but includes, in varying degrees in each instance, loss of use of the body to earn substantial wages.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 54 Ark. App. 115 - Foxx v. American Transportation · Ray v. Shelnutt Nursing Home

3. ““The maximum medical rating of disability in this case was 40%, which was allowed by the referee and affirmed by the Pull Commission. Apparently, they also considered only medical evidence and this we consider error. Under the rules as set out in Larson, consideration should have been given, along with the medical evidence, to the appellant’s age, education, experience, and other matters affecting wage loss.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 40 Ark. App. 108 - Moser v. Arkansas Lime Co. · Wilson & Co. v. Christman