Fleischman v. Flowers’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2005
18 state decisions
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 118 Ohio St. 1 - Industrial Commission v. Kamrath · 122 Ohio St. 201 - Bozzelli v. Industrial Commission · State ex rel. Latino v. Industrial Commission · 138 Ohio St. 618 - State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm. · Industrial Commission v. Royer
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The happenstance of such absence from employment at some prior time has no logical relationship to the question of the extent of claimant’s present permanent partial disability, or any relationship to the original injury. It does not establish minimum limits as to the degree of disability necessary for payment. It is not akin to a statute of limitations. Any person who, by the nature of his employment, is able to return to at least some work within seven days is precluded from even having his application considered, although the extent or degree of his permanent partial disability may be far in excess of that suffered by another employee who happened to be totally absent from employment for more than one week, and even though there be no question as to the relationship of the disability to the injury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * Essentially, as observed by this court in State, ex rel. Latino, v. Indus. Comm. (1968), 13 Ohio St. 2d 103 , permanent partial compensation under paragraph (B), like that provided for under paragraph (C) (loss of a member of the body), is an exception to the general rule that sections of the Ohio Workmen’s Compensation Law ‘are aimed exclusively at compensating for impairment of earning capacity,’ and bears a closer resemblance to damages than it does to compensation for loss of employment. See, also, Young, Workmen’s Compensation Law of Ohio, Section 7.22, quoted with approval in Latino. For an analysis of the nature of the payment under R. C. 4123.57(C), see State, ex rel. Dudley, v. Indus. Comm. (1939), 135 Ohio St. 121 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Any doubt in such respect has been removed by the decision of this court in Emmons v. Keller (1970), 21 Ohio St. 2d 48 .””
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.