Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 655 A2D 367 - Baker v. Klein

Baker v. Klein’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
July 2009
most recently cited

1 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Riley v. Bath Iron Works Corp. · Procise v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurance · Morgan-Leland v. University of Maine

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A party may petition the board, within one year of initiation of a payment scheme, award or decree, to reopen any case in which fraud on the part of the opposing party is alleged. If the board finds that the petitioning party exercised due diligence in investigating the initial claim and further finds that fraud occurred, the board may reopen the case as to any issue that may have been affected by the fraudulent act and the board may terminate or modify an employer’s obligation to make payment upon a finding that fraud on the part of a party affected the employer’s obligation to make payment. Except in the case of fraud on the part of the employee, an employee is not barred by any time limit from filing a petition to have any issues determined in accordance with this Act as though the payment scheme had not been initiated.”
    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.