Hieb v. Lowery’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter (1999), Brown v. Flowe (1998)
2 district · 55 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 Calloway v. Ford Motor Company · Poole v. Miller · Able Outdoor, Inc. v. Harrelson · 121 N.C. App. 33 - Hieb v. Lowery · 112 N.C. App. 502 - Hieb v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(f)(1) If the employer has filed a written admission of liability for benefits under this Chapter with, or if an award final in nature in favor of the employee has been entered by the Industrial Commission, then any amount obtained by any person by settlement with, judgment against, or otherwise from the third party by reason of such injury or death shall be disbursed by order of the Industrial Commission for the following purposes and in the following order of priority: a. First to the payment of actual court costs .... b. Second to the payment of the fee of the attorney making settlement or obtaining judgment. . . . c. Third to the reimbursement of the employer for all benefits by way of compensation of medical compensation expense paid or to be paid by the employer under award of the Industrial Commission. d. Fourth to the payment of any amount remaining to the employee .... Q) Notwithstanding any other subsection in this section, in the event that a judgment is obtained which is insufficient to compensate the subrogation claim of the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Carrier, or in the event that a settlement has been agreed upon by the employee and the third party, either party may apply to the resident superior court judge ... to determine the subrogation amount. . . . [T]he judge shall determine, in his discretion, the amount, if any, of the employer’s lien and the amount of cost of the third-party litigation to be shared between the employee and employer. . . .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]hen language used in a statute is clear and unambiguous, [the Court] must refrain from judicial construction and accord words undefined in the statute their plain and definite meaning.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) a judgment insufficient to compensate the subrogation claim of the workers' compensation insurance carrier or (2) a settlement.”
3 later decisions 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.