Klosterman v. Industrial Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 2021
3 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 Craig v. Rider · Barnes v. Gaines · Industrial Commission v. Rowe · 36 Colo. App. 319 - Zappas v. Industrial Commission · State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Velasquez
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.
“while considerations constituting mistake or error and excusable neglect may sometimes overlap, we do not consider them to be synonymous”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Under the [Act], the director of the Division of Labor and the Industrial Commission have the authority and discretion to determine whether an error or mistake has been made and if so whether it is the type of error or mistake which warrants a reopening. It is apparent here that the Commission did not consider Klosterman's inaction after he obtained counsel, including his failure to apprise the Division of a change of address, or at any time of an address for the registered agent of the corporate entity, to be the type of mistake which would entitle him to a reopening. We perceive no abuse of discretion in this determination and, hence, may not disturb it on review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“resulting in part from his reliance on advice from an attorney and his lack of receipt of some of the notices. Id. at 874-75 . The hearing officer who considered his request found no basis for reopening and denied the request. Id. at 875 . On appeal, Klosterman argued that reopening was warranted due to excusable neglect, analogizing to the provisions of C.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) for setting aside a judgment. Id. The division disagreed, reasoning that”
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.