Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 824 S.W.2d 843 - Newberg v. Wright

Newberg v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
June 1999
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Epsilon Trading Co. v. Revenue Cabinet

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

  1. “(2) The presence of respiratory impairment resulting from exposure to coal dust shall be established by using the largest forced vital capacity (FVC) value or the largest forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) value determined from the totality of all such spirometric testing performed in compliance with accepted medical standards.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is apparent that the legislature intended for the fact finder to consider obstructive impairment, as indicated by the FEV1 value, in determining the degree of compen-sable disability resulting from exposure to coal dust. KRS 342.732(2). It seems most likely that where a claimant exhibits differing degrees of restrictive and obstructive impairment, the legislature intended to award benefits based on the more severe impairment, regardless of whether it is due to pneumoconiosis or to obstructive airways disease. Therefore, a claimant may be awarded benefits pursuant to KRS 342.-732(l)(e) if either his largest FVC or his largest FEV1 value is less than 55% of the predicted normal value.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Considering the plain meaning of this language, the fact that spirometric test values are affected by the subject’s effort, and the apparent attempt by the legislature to incorporate more objective standards for the award of benefits, we believe that the legislature clearly1 intended for none but the highest FVC value and the highest FEV1 value to be considered in determining the level of benefits to be awarded.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.