Clemmer Ex Rel. Clemmer v. Carpenter’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently May 2000
21 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 H. T. Coker Construction Co. v. Whitfield Transportation, Inc. · Edens v. New Mexico Health & Social Services Department · Brown v. Arapahoe Drilling Company · Kandelin v. Lee Moor Contracting Co. · Newman v. Bennett
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When Clemmer was killed, he was driving from Estancia to Albuquerque to accomplish work for both the Coast Guard Reserve and William Carpenter. The fact that he intended to attend the Coast Guard Reserve meeting first does not negate the trip as regards his purposes for Carpenter, because he would have had to drive into Albuquerque for Carpenter anyway. Also, the fact that Clemmer was driving early in the morning does not negate his purpose of doing work for Carpenter when he was in Albuquerque. “In dual-employment situations, if the .accident occurs when the work[er] is clearly performing services for only one employer, then that employer is liable for any workmen’s compensation benefits. If, however, the services being performed at the time of the accident cannot be attributed to a specific employer, but are services performed for both employers, then both employers are liable.” 648 P.2d at 347-348 (emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] single employee, under contract with two employers, and under the separate control of each, performs services for the most part for each employer separately, and when the service for each employer is largely urn-elated to that for the other. In such a ease, the employers may be liable for worker’s compensation separately or jointly, depending on the severability of the employee’s activity at the time of injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment”
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.