McCuiston v. Addressograph-Multigraph Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably 107 N.C. App. 536 - Keel v. H & v. INC. (1992), 79 N.C. App. 324 - Gay v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc. (1986)
32 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 Matter of Banks · State v. Hart · Hobbs v. County of Moore · Watts v. Brewer
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is unreasonable to assume that the legislature intended an employee to bear the burden of making [toxicity] measurements during his employment in order to lay the groundwork for a worker's compensation claim. Such an interpretation of the statute would make it virtually impossible for an employee to successfully bring suit for compensation ... due to the difficulty he would encounter in attempting to make measurements of [toxic airborne substances] on his employer's premises. A construction of the statute which defeats its purpose ... would be irrational and will not be adopted by this Court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“2. On 1 October 1971, as a result of injurious exposure to harmful noise in his employment, plaintiff had suffered permanent sensorineural loss of hearing in both ears. G.S. 97-53(28). 3. Plaintiff was last injuriously exposed to harmful noise while he was employed by defendant from 1971 until his termination of employment in 1981. G.S. 97-53(28).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[s]ound of an intensity of less than 90 decibels, A scale, shall be deemed incapable of producing occupational loss of hearing,”
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.