Powers v. Riccobene Masonry Construction, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2003
16 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 Krupiak v. Payton · Webb v. New Mexico Pub. Co. · Lyon v. Catron County Commissioners · Herndon v. Albuquerque Public Schools · 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There are two rules generally used in determining which of two insurance companies is liable in second injury cases. One rule, frequently referred to as the Massachusetts-Michigan rule, see generally, 4 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law §§ 95.12 and 95.31 (1980), is that the second insurer is liable if the second injury contributed even slightly to the cause of the disability. Rock’s Case, 323 Mass. 428 , 82 N.E.2d 616 (1948). The other rule, known as the Florida rule, Hanks v. Walker, 60 N.M. 166 , 288 P.2d 699 (1955), is that the insurance company covering the risk at the time of the first injury pays if the second injury is the result of the first injury from which the workman has never recovered, and is a manifestation of the continuance of that injury. Brewer v. Pan American Airways, Inc., 156 Fla. 812 , 24 So.2d 521 (1946). Both rules have been cited with approval in New Mexico. See, Hanks; Perea v. Gorby, 94 N.M. 325 , 610 P.2d 212 (Ct.App.1980); Ponce v. Hanes L’Eggs Products, Inc., 91 N.M. 112 , 570 P.2d 943 (Ct.App.1977). A third alternative, used in some states, is apportionment. 4 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law §§ 95.00 and 95.31 (1980); 16 Williamette L.Rev. 137 (1979). Apportionment has not been used in New Mexico. The Legislature has not enacted a statute allowing it * *.”
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.