Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 431 PA 446 - Barrett v. Otis Elevator Co.

Barrett v. Otis Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

271
cited by 271 later decisions
1
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 264 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 271 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (1987), 121 Pa. Commw. 436 - Russell v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (1988)

3 federal appellate · 264 state decisions

1140196819701980199020002010decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Kerner v. Flemming · Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co. · Unora v. Glen Alden Coal Co. · Petrone v. Moffat Coal Co. · 147 Pa. Super. 328 - Walsh v. Penn Anthracite Mining 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 271 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If the existence or nonexistence of a fact can be demonstrated by one party to a controversy much more easily than by the other party, the burden of proof may be placed on that party who can discharge it most easily.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A finding that is completely unsupported by competent evidence does not capriciously disregard competent evidence if there is not competent evidence to support a contrary finding.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[O]nce the claimant has discharged his burden of proving that, because of his injury, he is unable to do the type of work he was engaged in when injured, the employer has the burden of proving that other work is available to the claimant which he is capable of obtaining.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.