Winter v. Roberson Construction Company’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 1990 · most notably Lozano v. Archer (1962), Malone v. Swift Fresh Meats Co. (1978)
53 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 Ogletree v. Jones · Gilbert v. E. B. Law & Son, Inc. · Osterlund v. State · Maryland Casualty Company v. Jolly · Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Martinez
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The verbal communications between claimant and the employer’s foreman, resulting in the issuance of the [medical] order, would lead to a strong inference that they amounted to more than the mere casual conversations which took place in the cases of Ogletree v. Jones, 44 N.M. 567 , 106 P.2d 302 and Bolton v. Murdock, 62 N.M. 211 , 307 P.2d 794 , relied upon by appellants, and this inference must be considered in the light most favorable to appellee and resolved in his favor. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Jolly[’s Welding Service] 67 N.M. 101 , 353 P.2d 1013 ; Davis v. Hartley, supra. [ 69 N.M. 91 , 364 P.2d 349 ]. * * *””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The legislature defined the term ‘disability’ in § 59-10-12.1 (A), N.M. S.A., 1953, to mean: “ ‘ * * * a decrease of wage earning ability due to a workman’s injury suffered by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.’ Moreover, by the 1959 amendments to the workmen’s compensation act, compensation payments are no longer based upon the physical injury, but upon the ‘disability,’ or decreased earning ability produced by the injury. Sec. 59 — 10— 13.5, N.M.S.A, 1953. * * * “In this case, the workman was able to return to work without a reduction in earnings during the period September 21, 1960, following recovery from the laminectomy, until at least October 13, 1961. During that period, the claimant was not disabled as that term is defined by the legislature. “ * * * “Whether a claimant who suffers some pain as a result of an accidental injury has a right not to- work and to file a claim even though he could work with pain is a question not before us in this case. We find nothing in the statute which requires such workman to cease work and file his claim merely because he continues under the care of a doctor, or suffers some pain, or had' been told that at some future time an additional operation may be required as a result of the injury suffered. On' the contrary, it is clear to us that a workman may not recover for any period during which his earning ability is as much as before the injury. It follows that the trial court erred in applying the statute of l”
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.