Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 713 P2D 249 - Bailey v. Litwin Corp.

Bailey v. Litwin Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2020

20 state decisions

10019861990200020102020decided

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 Miller v. ITT Arctic Services · Gorman v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. · 95 Cal. App. 3d 856 - Huston v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · Burgess Construction Co. v. Smallwood · Veco, Inc. v. Wolfer

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

  1. “(a) In case of disability partial in character but permanent in quality the compensation is 66⅜ percent of the injured employee’s average weekly wages ..., and shall be paid to the employee as follows: (20) in all other cases in this class of disability the compensation is 662A percent of the difference between his average weekly wages and his wage-earning capacity after the injury in the same employment or otherwise, payable during the continuance of the partial disability ...; whenever the board determines that it is in the interest of justice, the liability of the employer for compensation, or any part of it as determined by the board, may be discharged by the payment of a lump sum (b) Total compensation paid under (a)(20) of this section may not exceed 160,000.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Under Absher [v. State, Department of Highways, 500 P.2d 1004 (Alaska 1972)], the Board acted reasonably in basing Bailey’s lump sum award on the relationship between impaired earning capacity and the statutory maximum for unscheduled injuries. Providence Washington [Insurance Company v. Grant, 693 P.2d 872 (Alaska 1985)], however, forbids the identical method for scheduled injuries. The same reasons that lead us to overrule Cesar [v. Alaska Workmen’s Compensation Board, 383 P.2d 805 (Alaska 1963)] in the area of scheduled injuries compel us to overrule Absher in the case of unscheduled injuries.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Ordinarily, compensation is paid on unscheduled injuries according to the formula set forth in AS 23.30.190(a)(20) until the $60,000 maximum is paid. Where, as here, the employee requests a lump sum, we hold that the Board should first determine whether it is in the interest of justice that a lump sum be paid.”
    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.