Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 552 SO2D 536 - Frazier v. Conagra, Inc.

Frazier v. Conagra, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably 559 So. 2d 124 - Frazier v. Conagra, Inc. (1990), 665 So. 2d 657 - Knotts v. Snelling Temporaries (1995)

31 state decisions

2701989199020002010decided

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 State ex rel. Turner v. Maggio · 480 So. 2d 363 - Chelette v. American Guar. & Liability Ins., Inc. · 525 So. 2d 1124 - DeGruy v. Pala, Inc. · Breaux v. Travelers Ins. Co. · Hunter v. Allstate Insurance 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[E]ngag[ing] in any self-employment or gainful occupation for wages whether or not the same or a similar occupation as that in which the employee was customarily engaged when injured and whether or not an occupation for which the employee at the time of injury was particularly fitted by reason of education, training, or experience....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A. When an employee has suffered an injury ... which precludes the employee from earning wages equal to wages earned prior to the injury, the employee shall be entitled to prompt rehabilitation services. The employer or insurer shall provide such injured employee with appropriate training and education for suitable gainful employment...”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A claimant is considered temporarily totally disabled under the “odd-lot” doctrine when he can perform no services other than those which are so limited in quality, dependability or quantity that a reasonably stable market for them does not exist. This determination can only be made after evaluating the claimant’s physical and mental capacity, education and training. The odd-lot claimant does not have to be absolutely helpless in order to qualify for total disability. If the claimant can prove that his physical condition, mental capacity, education, training, age and other factors combined to place him at a substantial disadvantage in the competitive labor market, he has made out a prima facie case for classification in the odd-lot category. This satisfies the claimant’s burden of proving that he should be awarded benefits for total disability. The employer or insurer must then show that some form of gainful occupation is regularly and continuously available to the employee within reasonable proximity to the employee’s residence. DeGruy v. Pala, Inc., 525 So.2d 1124 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988), writ denied, 530 So.2d 568 (La.1988).”
    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.