Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 963 SW2D 623 - Campbell v. Universal Mines

Campbell v. Universal Mines’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
March 2004
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Beale v. Faultless Hardware · McCoy Elkhorn Coal Corp. v. Sullivan

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

  1. “Upon the application of the affected employee, and a showing of progression of his previously-diagnosed occupational pneumoconiosis resulting from exposure to coal dust and development of respiratory impairment due to that pneumoco-niosis, the administrative law judge may review an award of a retraining incentive benefit because of such diagnosis, and upon a finding of respiratory impairment due to that pneumoconiosis shall make an award for benefits as provided in KRS 342.732. Such a reopening may also occur upon a showing of progression of respiratory impairment in a claim for which benefits were previously awarded under the provisions of KRS 342.732....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The first step is the filing of a motion to reopen the award. The second step requires a prima facie showing of a substantial possibility that the movant can prove not only the conditions which authorize reopening the award, but also that he is entitled to an increased award. Only if those requirements are satisfied will the taking of further proof be authorized and the adversary put to the expense of relitigation. The plain language of KRS 342.125(2)(a) requires a prima facie showing of both a progression of the disease and either the development or the progression of a respiratory impairment in order for a worker to prevail on a motion to reopen a RIB award.”
    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.