Roach Manufacturing Co. v. Cole’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably Bankston v. Prime West Corp. (1981), Lawhon Farm Services v. Brown (1998)
41 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 Williams v. Edmondson · Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. Smith · Nolen v. Wortz Biscuit Co. · Smith v. Farm Service Cooperative · Mosley v. El Dorado School District
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) ... compensation for the death of an employee shall be paid to those persons who were wholly and actually dependent upon him in the following percentage of the average weekly wage of the employee, and in the following order of preference: First. To the widow if there is no child, thirty-five per cent (35%), and such compensation shall be paid until her death or remarriage. Provided, however, the widow shall establish, in fact, some dependency upon the deceased employee before she will be entitled to benefits as provided herein. To the widower if there is no child, thirty-five per cent (35% ), and such compensation shall be paid during the continuance of his incapacity or until remarriage. Provided, however, the widower shall establish, in fact, some dependency upon the deceased employee before he will be entitled to benefits as provided herein. Second. To the widow or widower if there is a child, the compensation payable under the First above, and fifteen percent (15% ) on account of each child.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“We assume — under our settled law we must assume — that the Legislature, in deciding to amend the statute, knew the meaning that we had attributed to ‘wholly dependent.’ ... It unavoidably follows that the addition of the word ‘actually’ was intended to change what amounted to a conclusive presumption of dependency under our prior cases. It follows at least that, when, as here, the widow and child were not living with the employee at the time of his death, there must be some showing of actual dependency. We have said, where there is no presumption of dependency, that dependency is a fact question to be determined in the light of surrounding circumstances. Smith v. Farm Service Cooperative, 244 Ark. 119 , 424 S.W. 2d 147 (1968). ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Proof of bare legal obligation to support, unaccompanied by either actual support or reasonable expectation of support, is ordinarily not enough to satisfy the requirement of actual dependency.”
2 later decisions 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.