Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 N.M. 384 - Jensen v. United Perlite Corporation

Jensen v. United Perlite Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
June 1993
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 1993

20 state decisions

1001966197019801990decided

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 Ross v. Sayers Well Servicing Company · Mascarenas v. Kennedy · Boggs v. D & L CONSTRUCTION COMPANY · Sisneros v. Breese Industries, Inc. · Salome v. Eidal Manufacturing Company

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. ““In Boggs v. D & L Construction Company, supra, we held that the scheduled injury section of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is not exclusive when there is proof of a separate and distinct impairment to other parts of the body. See also, Salome v. Eidal Manufacturing Company, 75 N.M. 354 , 404 P.2d 308 . In the instant case, expert testimony indicates that claimant suffered an injury to his mind, as a result of an accident, which has resulted in total and permanent disability according to the conclusions of the trial court. This is a separate and distinct injury to a part of the body other than his left arm. It is not solely the fact that claimant is unable to use his left arm, which has prevented him from returning to some type of employment. It appears to be the loss of his self-respect which has caused much of his uselessness. It was entirely proper for the trial court to conclude that claimant was totally and permanently disabled, under the facts and testimony of this case.””
    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.