Fleming v. K-Mart Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably 101 N.C. App. 24 - Kennedy v. Duke University Medical Center (1990), Johnson v. Southern Tire Sales and Service (2004)
44 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 Hilliard v. Apex Cabinet Co. · Gillikin v. Burbage · Little v. Anson County Schools Food Service · Perry v. Hibriten Furniture Co. · Harris v. Henry's Auto Parts
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In cases included by the following schedule the compensation in each case shall be paid for disability during the healing period and in addition the disability shall be deemed to continue for the period specified, and shall be in lieu of all other compensation ... to wit: (17) The loss of. . . both legs . . . shall constitute total and permanent disability, to be compensated according to the provisions of G.S. 97-29. . . . (19) Total loss of use of a member . . . shall be considered as equivalent to the loss of such member ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Although it is clear that because plaintiff is totally unable to earn any wages, he is disabled within the meaning of N.C. G.S. 97-2(9) and thus entitled to benefits under N.C.G.S. 97-29 directly, we note that if the Commission had analyzed plaintiff's case by turning first to the schedule of injuries in N.C.G.S. 97-31, it should have come to the same conclusion. N.C.G.S. 97-31(19) states that "[t]otal loss of use of a member ... shall be considered as equivalent to the loss of such member...." N.C.G.S. 97-31(17) provides that "[t]he loss of ... both legs... shall constitute total and permanent disability, to be compensated according to the provisions of G.S. 97-29." The Commission's findings support a conclusion that plaintiff suffered total loss of use of both of his legs due to arachnoiditis. Therefore, under N.C.G.S. 97-31(17) plaintiff would be entitled to receive benefits under N.C.G.S. 97-29.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The language of G.S. 97-31 ... compels the conclusion that if by reason of a compensable injury an employee is unable to work and earn any wages he is totally disabled, G.S. 97-2(9), and entitled to compensation for permanent total disability under G.S. 97-29 unless all his injuries are included in the schedule set out in G.S. 97-31. In that event the injured employee is entitled to compensation exclusively under G.S. 97-31 regardless of his ability or inability to earn wages in the same or any other employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.