Black v. Barnwell County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Citation of authority is unnecessary for the settled rule that in Workmen’s Compensation cases the Industrial Commission is the fact-finding body; and that, on appeal, this Court and the circuit court are limited in their review of the facts to a determination of whether or not there is any competent evidence to support the factual findings of the Commission. When there is a conflict in the evidence, either of different witnesses or of the same witness, the findings of fact of the Commission are conclusive. It is only when the evidence gives rise to but one reasonable inference that the question becomes one of law for the court to decide. “To establish that the death of Sheriff Black resulted from a compensable accident, it was necessary for the claimant to prove (1) a causal connection between the climbing of the stairs and the heart attack from which the deceased died and (2) that the climbing of the stairs constituted an unusual and extraordinary exertion on his part. If the evidence was conflicting upon these issues, or either of them, such conflicts in the evidence could only be resolved by the Industrial Commission, the fact-finding body. “Whether climbing the stairs by the deceased on the occasion in question constituted an unusual or extraordinary exertion must be determined in the light of his usual and normal duties as jailor of Barnwell County. Sims v. South Carolina State Commission of Forestry, supra, 235 S. C. 1, 109 S. E. (2d) 701 . The deceased was jailor of ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Canady v. Charleston County School District

2. ““The general rule has been adopted in this State that a coronary attack suffered by an employee constitutes a compensable accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act if it is induced by unexpected strain or overexertion in the performance of the duties of his employment, or by unusual and the extraordinary conditions in the employment. Kearse v. South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department, 236 S. C. 540, 115 S. E. (2d) 183 . It has also been held, as stated in Walsh v. United States Rubber Co., 238 S. C. 411, 120 S. E. (2d) 685 , that [if a heart attack results as a consequence of the ordinary exertion that is required in the performance of the duties of the employment in the ordinary and usual manner, and without any outward untoward event, it is not compensable as an accident. The fact that due to weakened heart condition, the exertion required for the ordinary performance of the work is too great for the particular employee, who undertakes to perform it, does not make it a compensable accident. Sims v. South Carolina State Commission of Forestry, 235 S. C. 1, 109 S. E. (2d) 701 .’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lorick v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.

3. ““The question to be decided is whether there was any competent evidence to sustain the findings of the Commission that the heart attack suffered by the deceased was not a compensable accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Canady v. Charleston County School District