Vaughn v. United Nuclear Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Otero v. Zouhar (1985), Leo v. Cornucopia Restaurant (1994)
70 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 Methola v. County of Eddy · Martinez v. Research Park, Inc. · Perea v. Baca · 28 Wash. App. 319 - In Re the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Santore · Reynolds v. Ruidoso Racing Association, Inc.
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. Any worker may at any time file, and any employer may require a workman, as a condition of employment or continued employment, to file with the superintendent of insurance, a certificate of preexisting physical impairment. * * * * * * D. In the event the certificate of preexisting physical impairment certifies that the impairment was the result of an accidental injury, the Subsequent Injury Act shall be applicable to any disability arising out of accident or occurrence taking place after the date a certificate is executed. (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The statute is declaratory of an intention to encourage the employment and retention of handicapped workers by employers. The purpose of filing a certificate is to encourage employers to hire handicapped employees, or to retain workmen who have suffered disabling job-related injuries. The certificate has the effect of limiting the liability of an employer that hires or retains a handicapped employee and who subsequently suffers another disabling injury. The objective of the certificate requirement is not to require registration of a handicapped employee, but to provide notice to an employer of any pre-existing disability of an employee and to document the nature and extent of such disability. See Baum v. Greyhound Corp., 3 Kan.App.2d 456 , 601 P.2d 6 (1979), (Spencer, J. dissenting).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The language contained in § 52-2-6(D), supra, states that “the Subsequent Injury Act shall be applicable to any disability arising out of accident or occurrence taking place after the date a certificate is executed.” This was not intended to foreclose impleading the Superintendent of Insurance on behalf of the Second Injury Fund where a certificate is executed and filed after a workman incurs a subsequent injury and where the employer had actual knowledge of the employee’s prior disability.”
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.