Barron v. Ambort’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 1997 · most notably English v. Industrial Commission (1951), Apache East, Inc. v. Wiegand (1978)
26 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 Ossic v. Verde Central Mines · Butler v. Industrial Commission · Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Industrial Commission · Federal Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission of Arizona · Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““May the total wages of an employee from different employers be used as the basis for benefits when the injury arises-out of one of the employments wholly unrelated to the others ? In such case, may the award be assessed against the em ployer for whom the employee was working at the time of the accident? s{c * # ^ ‡ * “Where an employee is working for several different employers and is injured, in order that he may be reasonably compensated for the loss of his earning powers, his total wages must be taken into consideration. Any other construction of the statute would result in great injustice and lead, to absurdities. For instance, a skilled -employee might be regularly employed during different periods of a -month in separate occupations on a part-time basis. If he happened to be injured in the employment that paid him the least amount of money during the month, and his wages from the other employments •could not he considered, he would receive ■entirely inadequate compensation which would not represent his earning capacity. '“Under statutes similar to ours, it is held "that the proper wage is the total received from all employers, (citing cases) These ■cases hold also that when the employments are not joint, as in the Butler case, the entire burden of payment or responsibility falls upon the employer in whose ■employment the workman was injured * * *' “While the matter is not now before us, we feel it our duty to state that where, •as here, an employee is injured who is wo”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““There can be no question that the 4% commission was as much a part of the wage of the deceased as the. $75 which he was to be paid. The agreement, as we understand it, was for $75 plus 4% commissions. These commissions were the result of the personal efforts of .the deceased, and were his earnings and wages.” “The commissions here were in no sense . a bonus in the nature of a gratuity or an ' amount allowed from the profits of the business, which might or might not be paid to the employee. It is our view, however, that whether the earnings are denominated bonus or commissions, if they are the result of the personal efforts of the employee and would be recoverable in an action at law, they constitute wages or earnings.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is our view, however, that whether the earnings are denominated bonus or commissions, if they are the result of the personal efforts of the employee and would be recoverable in an action at law, they constitute wages or earnings.”
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.