Lipe v. Bradbury’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently June 1984 · most notably Wilson v. Rowan Drilling Co. (1950), Mascarenas v. Kennedy (1964)
68 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 Elsea v. Broome Furniture Co. · Stevenson v. Lee Moor Contracting Co. · Hudson v. Herschbach Drilling Co. · Robinson v. Mittry Bros. · New Mexico State Highway Department v. Bible
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The basic error in defendants’ argument under this point is that it fails to distinguish between the actual physical injury directly suffered by the particular member and the general bodily disability resulting therefrom. “ * * * Defendants misappraise our holding in the Gonzales case. There claimant’s arm had been severed and there was no showing, as here, of such general impairment to the rest of the body by reason of the particular injury, except as to some over-all impairment of performance such as would naturally follow in any case from the loss of such a member. We there recognized the difference and distinguished the circumstances from that shown in the case of Mathews v. New Mexico Light & Power Co., 46 N.M. 118 , 122 P.2d 410 , where there was impairment to the claimant’s whole body as the result of the injury to his leg, and where he was held to be entitled to compensation for total and permanent disability.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * Where the injury is confined to a scheduled member and there is no impairment of any other part of the body because of such injury, compensation is limited to that provided by the statute; this is true even though other considerations such as age, lack of training, or other conditions peculiar to the individual make a case where the injury to the member may result, in the particular case, to some, if not total and permanent, disability. But, where general bodily impairment and disability is shown, as here, then compensation is allowable for such total and permanent disability notwithstanding the cause of the disability may be traced to a particular injury of a specific member for the loss (or loss of use) of which scheduled compensation is provided. * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * Such claim shall he informal in character and shall set forth sufficient facts for the determination of the same, and if defective in any particular may be corrected by the court or by the claimant at any time before being heard.””
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.