Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 579 FSUPP 218 - Baksalary v. Smith

Baksalary v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
3
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Beckler v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau (1988), Clark v. McDonald's Corp. (2003)

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions

1801984199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Goldberg v. Kelly · Fuentes v. Shevin · Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. · Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “§774.1 Any insurer who . . . terminates . . . payments of compensation . . . without filing a petition and either alleging that the employe has returned to work at his prior or increased earnings or where the petition alleges that the employee has fully recovered and is accompanied by an affidavit of a physician on a form prescribed by the department to that effect which is based upon an examination made within fifteen days of filing of the petition or having requested and been granted a supersedeas as provided in this section, shall be subject to penalty as provided in Section 435. (Emphasis added.) §991 (i) Employers and insurers may be penalized a sum not exceeding ten per centum of the amount awarded and interests accrued and payable: Provided, however, that such penalty may be increased to twenty per centum in cases of unreasonable or excessive delays. Such penalty shall be payable to the same persons to whom the compensation is payable.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Thus, in two sorts of cases an employee receiving benefits can have his benefits terminated pending disposition of his employer’s or his employers’ insurer’s petition to terminate or modify those benefits. The first sort of case is one where the petition alleges that the employee has returned to work at the same or higher wages. The second sort of case is one where the petition alleges that the employee has fully recovered... [In both cases], [t]he employee has no avenue to contest application of the automatic supersedeas other than his defense on the merits of the petition before the referee. Referees typically take one year or more to decide contested cases.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “First, the deprivation must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the state or by a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person for whom the state is responsible .... Second, the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor.”
    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.