Davis v. Meadors-Cherry Company’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 2021
10 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 State Ex Rel. Del Curto v. District Court of Fourth Judicial Dist. · Dunham v. Stitzberg · Hudson v. Herschbach Drilling Co. · Jordan v. Jordan · Kerr v. Southwest Flourite 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Comes now the plaintiff, C. C. Davis, and moves the Court to reopen the above-entitled claim for workmen’s compensation,' and as grounds for his motion says: 1. That the award heretofore made in this case included nothing for plaintiff’s permanent partial disability. 2. That prior to the filing of plaintiff’s claim herein he underwent spinal surgery to correct the injuries complained of; that since the entry of the judgment herein further surgery has been necessary; that the original surgery was not a success, and the subsequent surgery was necessary to correct the original surgery; that at the time of the entry of the judgment herein all parties herein believed that said surgery was successful, and that the complications which later necessitated additional surgery were not and could not ordinarily have been anticipated and therefore were in the nature of a latent injury. 3. That plaintiff is now totally and permanently disabled as a result of his original injury and the resulting surgery. 4. That plaintiff has been unable to do anything but light work since the entry of the judgment herein and has for all practical purposes been unable to work since then; that he was hospitalized from June 7, 1956, to June 25, 1956, and since then has had to wear a spinal brace; that he has incurred expenses for doctor, hospital and orthopedic appliances in excess of $800.00 since June 7, 1956, and will incur additional expenses of a large but undetermined amount in the future for the treat”
1 later decision 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.