90 Ark. App. 409 - Logan County v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably 91 Ark. App. 260 - Stone v. Dollar General Stores (2005), 2012 Ark. App. 559 - Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. v. Keys (2012)
42 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 Aluminum Co. of America v. Henning · Franklin v. Healthsource of Arkansas · 89 Ark. App. 228 - Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, Inc. · 75 Ark. App. 232 - Emerson Elec. v. Gaston · 84 Ark. App. 399 - Whitlatch v. Southland Land & Development
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b)(1) In considering claims for permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the employee’s percentage of permanent physical impairment, the Workers’ Compensation Commission may take into account, in addition to the percentage of permanent physical impairment, such factors as the employee’s age, education, work experience, and other matters reasonably expected to affect his or her earning capacity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The claimant is 49 years old and he has vocational education in welding although the claimant did not pursue this career. The claimant lacks motivation to return to work because he will not take a job that pays less than the $18.63 he was making before he sustained his compensable injury. The claimant refuses to move from the area where he lives even though the labor market in his area is depressed. The claimant should not be rewarded for refusing to seek employment at lesser wages and for refusing to move to an area that offers more opportunities for work. Simply put, when we consider the claimant’s age, education, work experience, motivation and physical restrictions, we find that the claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to wage loss disability benefits in the amount of 10% over and above his permanent anatomical impairment of 5% to the body as a whole thereby giving the claimant a total of 15% in permanent impairment. Accordingly, we modify the ■ Administrative Law Judge’s award of 45% to 10%.”
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.