Goetz v. J. D. Carson Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently April 2006 · most notably Davis v. Research Medical Center (1995), Sanderson v. Producers Commission Ass'n (1950)
53 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 Wood v. Wagner Electric Corporation · In Re Claim of Dependents of Seabaugh v. Garver Lumber Manufacturing Co. · Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co. · Wamhoff v. Wagner Electric Corp. · Wahlig v. Krenning-Schlapp Grocer 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question is raised as to the scope of review under Section 22, Article V, 1945 Constitution. We cannot agree with the conclusion of the court of appeals that ‘Section 3732 [RSMo 1939, now § 287.495, RSMo 1994 6 ] has not been affected by the new Constitution.’ 7 [[Image here]] [A]s of July 1,1946, there has been written into Section 3732, in lieu of the narrow review ground No. 4 ‘that there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award,’ [see § 287.495.1(4), RSMo 1994] the broader ground that the award (and any finding supporting it) was not ‘supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.’ This is true because the Constitution makes this broader review the minimum standard which may be established for review in any case decided on a hearing before an administrative officer or body. ⅜ ⅜ * * * * [T]his stated minimum standard (‘supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record’) is mandatory and requires no legislation to put it into effect. This does not mean that the reviewing court may substitute its own judgment on the evidence for that of the administrative tribunal. But it does authorize it to decide whether such tribunal could have reasonably made its findings, and reached its result, upon consideration of all of the evidence before it; and to set aside decisions clearly contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Of course, the reviewing court should adhere to the rule of ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“an injury to an employee arises `in the course of' his employment when it occurs within the period of his employment, at a place where he may reasonably be, and while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of his employment or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.”
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.