Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 N.M. 587 - Glover v. Sherman Power Tongs

Glover v. Sherman Power Tongs’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
June 2007
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2007 · most notably DiMatteo v. County of Dona Ana (1989), Cardenas v. United Nuclear Homestake Partners (1981)

32 state decisions

180198019902000decided

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 McGeehan v. Bunch · Garcia v. Genuine Parts Co. · Medina v. Zia Company · Mascarenas v. Kennedy · Marez v. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp.

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

  1. ““Giving ‘physical impairment’ the ordinary meaning as used in common speech, the term denotes a defect or infirmity limiting or making useless a member or limb of the body... . ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The Workman’s Compensation Act was not written with the intent that it be so penuriously interpreted that a workman be bound by a “one-shot” chance at showing his ability or inability to perform the tasks of his usual occupation or other work he is fitted by past history to do____Section 52-1-56(A) was unquestionably intended to meet the effect of changes which could occur in a workman’s physical condition, as related to a compensable injury (whether the change be for better or worse), during the period for which compensation could be paid.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The Workman's Compensation Act was not written with the intent that it be so penuriously interpreted that a workman be bound by a "one-shot" chance at showing his ability or inability to perform the tasks of his usual occupation or other work he is fitted by past history to do. If that were so, and each word of the Act were to be read to find a means to deny rather than to grant relief to an injured workman, the principal purpose of workman's compensation law would be thwarted.”
    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.