Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 N.M. 206 - Johnson v. Armstrong & Armstrong

Johnson v. Armstrong & Armstrong’s Empirical Analysis

1937

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
October 1995
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently October 1995 · most notably Garcia v. Genuine Parts Co. (1977), Sauter v. St. Michael's College (1962)

4 federal appellate · 28 state decisions

801937194019501960197019801990decided

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 Tweeddale v. Tweeddale · Burton v. Larkin · Panasuk's Case · Noer v. G. W. Jones Lumber Co. · Beattie Manufacturing Co. v. Clark

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

  1. ““imports more than a mere passive willingness or duty to furnish medical and surgical aid when called upon. It allows the employer to select his own physicians and surgeons for the care of his injured employees, but imports that arrangements should be made in advance, or that some one should be at hand in authority to provide medical and surgical care in cases of emergency like the one here considered. Case of Ripley, 229 Mass. 302 , 118 N.E. 638 ; In re Panasuk (In re American, etc., Co.), 217 Mass. 589 , 105 N.E. 368 .””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““A. After injury, and continuing as long as medical or surgical attention is reasonably necessary, the employer shall furnish all reasonable surgical, physical rehabilitation services, medical, osteopathic, chiropractic, dental, optometry and hospital services and medicine, not to exceed the sum of forty thousand dollars ($40,000), unless the workman refuses to allow them to be so furnished. “B. In case the employer has made provisions for, and has at the service of the workman at the time of the accident, adequate surgical, hospital and medical facilities and attention and offers to furnish these services during the period necessary, then the employer shall be under no obligation to furnish additional surgical, medical or hospital services or medicine than those so provided . . .””
    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.