State Ex Rel. Buttiger v. Haid’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2001
24 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 Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co. · State Ex Rel. Brewen-Clark Syrup Co. v. Missouri Workmen's Compensation Commission · Hidden v. Edwards · Smith v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘ ‘ The Court of' Appeals in the opinion states as a conclusion from the eyidence: ‘We would be unable to rule as a matter of law that there was no good cause shown for the failure to give such notice and that the employer was not prejudiced by the failure to receive such notice. ’ On the contrary, the evidence seems conclusive that there was good cause for failure to give such notice in thirty days after the. accident. It was two full months, February 20, 1929, after the accident, December 20, 1928, before the injury was apparent. Then for the first time Buttiger and his family discovered that it was serious. The employer’s physician, expert, diagnosed it as a case of osteomyelitis, and testified that the progress of the disease was slow, without pain or noticeable symptoms for at least two months. The proof was undisputed. How then could a notice of the accident which caused the injury be given before the injiiry appeared?””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court must examine the evidence in order to find if it is competent and sufficient to support the award, just as the court would examine the evidence required to support a verdict of a jury . If the competent evidence is conflicting, the finding of facts by the commission is conclusive upon the court. If the finding is contrary to the award, the award must be set aside. If the finding is consistent with the award, the award must stand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is the finding of facts, not the failure to find facts, which would defeat the award. Section 3342 declares that a court may set aside the award, not because the commission failed to find facts which would support it, but because the commission found facts which would not support it . It must be an affirmative finding of facts which would make the award improper; facts inconsistent with the award.”
1 later decision 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.