Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 255 Ky. 724 - Olson v. Triplett

Olson v. Triplett’s Empirical Analysis

1934

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
states following
October 2001
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably Leep v. Kentucky State Police (1963), Frennier's Case (1945)

29 state decisions

10019341940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Consolidation Coal Company v. Crislip · Moore v. Peet Bros. Manufacturing Co. · Consolidation Coal Co.'s Receivers v. Patrick · Lehigh Construction Co. v. Womble · Black Star Coal Co. v. Powers

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

  1. ““It is a well-settled rule that ‘total disability* does not mean absolute helplessness or entire physical disability. It means loss of earning power as a workman, in consequence of the injury, whether the loss manifested itself in inability to perform such work as may be obtainable or inability to secure work to do. Consolidation Coal Company v. Crislip, 217 Ky. 371 , 289 S. W. 270 . In the Crislip Case, supra, it was held that an injured employee is ‘totally disabled’ when he is disqualified from performing the usual tasks of a workman in such a way as to enable him to procure and retain employment. Conceding, without deciding, that Triplett is able to perform some light work as a carpenter, yet it is common knowledge that he would find difficulty in obtaining employment as a carpenter unless he was physically able to discharge all the duties ordinarily expected and required of a carpenter. “In view of the evidence of Triplett and Drs. Speidel and Keith, it cannot be said that Triplett is not disabled to perform the duties of a carpenter in a substantial and efficient manner as he did before his injury, and, therefore, he is totally disabled within the meaning of that phrase as above defined. Lehigh Construction Company v. Womble, 251 Ky. 150 , 64 S. W. (2d) 479 , and cases cited therein; Moore v. Peet Brothers Manufacturing Company, 99 Kan. 443 , 162 P. 295 .”'”
    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.