Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 290 U.S. 551 - Lumbra v. United States

Lumbra v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

290 U.S. 551 · 1934

Citation profile

767
cited by 767 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
May 2015
most recently cited

632 federal appellate · 21 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 767 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2015 · most notably Galloway v. United States (1943), United States v. Spaulding (1935)

632 federal appellate · 21 district · 20 state decisions

5420193419401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedUnited States v. Lumbra (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Gunning v. Cooley · Stevens v. The White City · Eggen v. United States · Nicolay v. United States

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

  1. ““ ‘Total disability’ does not mean helplessness or complete disability, but it includes more than that which is partial. ‘Permanent disability’ means that which is continuing as opposed to what is temporary. Separate and distinct periods of temporary disability do not constitute that which is permanent. The mere fact that one has done some work after the lapse of his policy is not of itself sufficient to defeat his claim of total permanent disability. He may have worked when really unable and at the risk of endangering his health or life. But manifestly work performed may be such as conclusively to negative total permanent disability at the earlier time.””
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The phrase 'total permanent disability’ is to be construed reasonably and having regard to the circumstances of each ease. As the insurance authorized does not extend to total temporary or partial permanent disability, the tests appropriate for the determination of either need not be ascertained. The various meanings inhering in the phrase make impossible the ascertainment of any fixed rules of formulas uniformly to govern its construction. * * * It cannot be said that injury or disease sufficient merely to prevent one from again doing some work of the kind he had been accustomed to perform constitutes the disability meant by the act, for such impairment may not lessen or affect Ms ability to follow other useful, and perchance more lucrative, occupations. * * * ””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Any impairment of mind or body which renders it impossible for the disabled person to follow continuously any substantially gainful occupation shall be deemed ... to be total disability. “Total disability shall be deemed to be permanent whenever it is founded upon conditions which render, it reasonably certain that it will continue throughout the life of the person suffering from it.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.