Granados v. Windson Development Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 27 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Plaintiff argues, that because the workers’ compensation insurer, Liberty Mutual, accepted Plaintiffs status under the Act as well as the compensability of the claim, the Granados defense was waived. See Opposition at 10-11. One fatal flaw to Plaintiffs argument is that he made a false representation when he filed his Workers’ Compensation claim in another person’s name, Charles Boat[e]ng. Liberty Mutual, the insurance carrier, accepted Charles Boa-teng’s claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits, not John Marboah’s claim. See Opposition, Exh. 3 (emphasis added). As in Granados , Plaintiff admitted that he was ineligible for employment on both the date he began work and on the date he sustained the injury. See Motion, Exh. C at 90-91. Plaintiff acknowledges that he is not Charles Boa-teng. See Plaintiffs Statement of Undisputed Facts at ¶ 6. Plaintiff admitted that he was using Charles Boateng’s social security number to obtain employment because Plaintiff knew that his illegal status preempted him from finding employment [i]n the United States. Plaintiff does not dispute that between 1998 and April 2002, he was in the United States illegally. See Motion, Exh. C at 90-91. Therefore, as a matter of law, Plaintiff was not entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits under the Act and as a result suffered no injury. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Defendant proximately caused Plaintiffs loss of his Workers’ Compensation benefits. Indeed, Plaintiff had no legal interest”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marboah v. Ackerman

2. ““Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 27-14-102(a)(vii) expressly lists “aliens authorized to work by the United States department of justice, immigration and naturalization service ” as “employees” who may be covered by workers’ compensation. This specific phrase is meaningless if all aliens are considered “employees” whether authorized to work in this country or not. If the legislature intended that all employed aliens be covered by workers’ compensation it would not have precisely stated that aliens authorized to work here are considered employees. To give effect to all the language in the statute, we conclude that an alien not authorized to work in the United States is not an “employee” under §§ 27-14-102(a)(vii).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Design Kitchen and Baths v. Lagos

3. ““Granados was not in the service of Windson under any contract of hire because, under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, an illegal alien cannot be employed lawfully in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a; see also Code § 40.1-11.1.[ 6 ] Therefore, Granados was not eligible to receive compensation benefits as an ‘employee’ under the Act because his purported contract of hire was void and unenforceable.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Design Kitchen and Baths v. Lagos