Fulton v. Soopers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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

1. “In any case where an employer reemploys or continues the disabled employee at work in the employment of the employer at the employee’s preinjury rate of pay and extends to the employee the usual wage adjustments, the employee’s permanent partial disability award shall be limited to permanent medical impairment or a payment under section 8-42-107, whichever is less. This subsection (3) shall not apply if the director finds that due to the injury the employee is permanently unable to perform the duties offered by the employer. If, during the two years following the date of return to work or reemployment, the injured employee, as a result of said employee’s permanent disability due to the injury, is dismissed from employment or resigns from employment with the employer, said employee may petition the director for a redetermination of the original permanent partial disability award, and, upon a proper showing of the employee’s limitations in the labor market, the director shall order an appropriate award of permanent partial disability.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Lerner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · Monfort, Inc. v. Gonzalez

2. “the union's refusal to advance the employee from apprentice to journeyman mechanic after the employee was injured, we concluded that an interpretation of section 8-42-110(3) that includes union classification upgrades as part of the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Snyder Oil Co. v. Embree

3. “language under that statute would undermine the employer's ability to control costs. Based on this reasoning, we held that in accordance with the legislative purpose of section 8-42-110(3),”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Snyder Oil Co. v. Embree