49 Ala. App. 191 - Henderson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 state decisions

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

1. “. . . This determination shall be filed in writing with the clerk of said court, and judgment shall be entered thereon in the same manner as in causes tried in the said circuit court, and shall contain a statement of the law and facts and conclusions as determined by said judge. . . .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dennis v. Gamble's, Inc. · 52 Ala. App. 52 - Avondale Mills, Inc. v. Tollison

2. “This case is submitted on the pleadings, testimony of the Plaintiff taken ore tenus , the exhibits admitted as evidence, and the depositions admitted as evidence. Upon consideration thereof, the Court is of the opinion and finds, and it is ORDERED that judgment be for the Defendant. It is further ORDERED that the costs of this action be taxed against Plaintiff for which let execution issue. The following excerpt from Henderson v. Johnson , 49 Ala. App. 191 , 269 So.2d 905 (1972) is dispositive of the present case: As to issue number one petitioner argues in brief that there was a complete omission in the trial court's order of a statement of the law, facts and conclusions upon which the court's judgment is based as required by Section 304, supra [Title 26, § 304, Code of Alabama 1940]. The pertinent portion of Section 304 is as follows: ". . . This determination shall be filed in writing with the clerk of said court, and judgment shall be entered thereon in the same manner as in causes tried in the said circuit court, and shall contain a statement of the law and facts and conclusions as determined by said judge. . . ." The decisions of the Supreme Court and this court are as one to the effect that a complete failure to abide by the above cited requirements of Section 304 requires a reversal of the case. Richardson Lumber Co. v. Pounders , 254 Ala. 285 , 48 So.2d 228 ; Bass v. Cowikee Mills , 257 Ala. 280 , 58 So.2d 589 ; Kearley v. Peterman Lumber Co. , 46 Ala. App. 204 , 239”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dennis v. Gamble's, Inc.

3. ““The question of the exclusiveness of schedule allowances in Workmen’s Compensation Laws is discussed in 2 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 58.20, pp. 44-45, where it is stated: “ ‘The great majority of modern decisions agree that, if the effects of the loss of the member extend to other parts of the body and interfere with their efficiency, the schedule allowance for the lost member is not exclusive. A common example of this kind of decision is that in which an amputation of a leg causes pain shooting into the rest of the body, general debility, stiffening of the hip socket, or other extended effects resulting in greater interference with ability to work than would be expected from a simple and uncomplicated loss of the leg.’ “This same problem is treated in an annotation in 156 A.L.R. 1344 , where the rule is said to be as follows: “ ‘The rule, however, is well established that where an employee has received a specific injury which spreads to other parts of the body and pro duces a greater or more prolonged incapacity than that which naturally results from the specific injury, or the injury causes an abnormal and unusual incapacity with respect to the member, the employee is not limited to a recovery of the special allowance provided for in case of injury to a specific member or members, but may recover under the provisions of the act for compensation in case of disability.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 50 Ala. App. 251 - Dale Motels, Inc. v. Crittenden