Lafayette v. General Dynamics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 district · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Grimm v. Grimm (2005), Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Town of Groton (2002)
2 district · 66 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
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 33 U.S.C. § 902 · 33 U.S.C. § 909 · 33 U.S.C. § 920 · 5 U.S.C. § 556 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Ashe v. Swenson · United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co. · Richardson v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc. · Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries · Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, is that aspect of res judicata which prohibits the relitigation of an issue when that issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in a prior action between the same parties upon a different claim. . . . For an issue to be subject to collateral estoppel, it must have been fully and fairly litigated in the first action. It also must have been actually decided and the decision must have been necessary to the judgment. . . ." Virgo v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497 , 501 , 551 A.2d 1243 (1988); see also Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 445 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); State v. Hope, 215 Conn. 570 , 584 , 577 A.2d 1000 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1089 , 111 S.Ct. 968 , 112 L.Ed.2d CT Page 15328-bh 1054 (1991). "An issue is actually litigated if it is properly raised in the pleadings or otherwise, submitted for determination, and in fact determined. . . . 1 Restatement (Second), Judgments § 27, comment (d) (1982). An issue is necessarily determined if, in the absence of a determination of the issue, the judgment could not have been validly rendered. . . . If an issue has been determined, but the judgment is not dependent upon the determination of the issue, the parties may relitigate the issue in a subsequent action." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lafayette v. General Dynamics Corp., 255 Conn. 762 , 772-73 , 770 A.2d 1 (2001), quoting Jackson v. R. G. Whipple, Inc., 225 Co”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Once a prima facie case has been established for ... death benefits, § 20 (a) of the Longshore Act provides a presumption that the claim is covered by the Longshore Act.... In order for a claimant to establish a prima facie case to invoke the presumption, the claimant must show that he has suffered an injury and that conditions existed in the workplace that could have caused the injury.... If the so-called § 20 (a) presumption of coverage is invoked, the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the employer. In order to rebut the § 20 (a) presumption, the employer must introduce substantial evidence that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment.... If the employer offers substantial evidence that the injury was not work-related, the presumption falls out of the case entirely ... and the administrative judge must weigh all of the evidence in the record. The administrative judge may then rule in favor of the claimant only if he or she concludes that the claimant has met his or her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury was work-related.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The principles that govern our standard of review in workers' compensation appeals are well established. The conclusions drawn by [the commissioner] from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them.... Neither the ... board nor this court has the power to retry facts.... Cases that present pure questions of law ... invoke a broader standard of review than is ordinarily involved in deciding whether, in light of the evidence, the agency has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion.... We have determined, therefore, that ... deference accorded to an agency's interpretation of a statutory term is unwarranted when the construction of a statute ... has not previously been subjected to judicial scrutiny [or to] ... a governmental agency's time-tested interpretation ....”
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.