4 Neb. Ct. App. 236 - Gibson-Voss v. Voss’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
4
states following
January 2001
most recently cited
9 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Queen v. Queen · Reichert v. Reichert · Jirkovsky v. Jirkovsky · Thiltges v. Thiltges · Sabatka v. Sabatka
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] court must consider (1) the purpose of the award, e.g., whether it was made for lost earnings, loss of future earning capacity, or some other purpose; (2) the time period of any diminished earning potential or disability; (3) the nature and date of the underlying injury; and (4) the terms of the award.”
2 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.