Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 340 MD 304 - Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Ralph

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Ralph’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
4
states following
May 2020
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2020

15 state decisions

701995200020102020decided

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 Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division · Mayor of Baltimore v. Cassidy · Blades v. Woods · County of Spotsylvania v. Hart · Reed v. Industrial Commission

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

  1. “(a) In accordance with regulations.—A physician shall evaluate a permanent impairment and report the evaluation to the Commission in accordance with the regulations of the Commission. (b) Contents of evaluation.—A medical evaluation of a permanent impairment shall include information about: (1) atrophy; (2) pain; (3) weakness; and (4) loss of endurance, function, and range of motion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “‘Maximum medical improvement’ is the stage at which workers’ compensation claimants have ‘reached a point of stability in their disease and they have benefitted maximally from their interventional medical care.’ (Quoting Alexander v. Montgomery County, 87 Md.App. 275, 279 , 589 A.2d 563 (1991)).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In all cases of permanent partial disability not listed in subsections (a) through (j) of this section, the Commission shall determine the percentage by which the industrial use of the covered employee’s body was impaired as a result of the accidental personal injury or occupational disease.”
    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.