Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 Ark. App. 153 - Single Source Transportation, Inc. v. Kent

99 Ark. App. 153 - Single Source Transportation, Inc. v. Kent’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
July 2012
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Sosebee v. County Line School District · 72 Ark. App. 450 - Spencer v. Stone Container Corp. · 87 Ark. App. 379 - Dillard v. Benton County Sheriff's Office · Williamson County BroadcastIng Co. v. InterMedia Partners · Rogers v. International Paper Co.

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

  1. “This appeal raises several issues concerning the 2005 claim, including the sufficiency of the evidence to support the award and whether medical treatment obtained by appellee after 2002 constituted "payment of compensation”for statute-of-limitations purposes. We do not address those issues at this time because the Commission’s method of computing the running of the statute of limitations is fundamentally flawed. The crucial period in determining the timeliness of appellee’s claim is that falling between the filing of a claim for additional compensation on March 12, 2001, and treatment obtained by appellant on March 13, 2002. Between theses dates, an order dismissing appellant’s March 12,2001, claim for failure to prosecute was entered on December 13, 2001. The question on appeal is whether the Commission erred in holding that the claim was timely because the claimant “obtained treatment for his left shoulder [on March 13, 2002] within one year of the December 2001 order of dismissal.” We hold that it did. As quoted above, subsection (b) bars claims for additional benefits that are not filed within two years from the date of the injury or one year from the last payment of compensation. Here, however, the Commission made no finding whatsoever as to the last payment of compensation. Instead, the Commission erroneously determined timeliness based on the date of an order of dismissal for failure to prosecute that... had the effect of transforming the claim filed on March 12,2001, ”
    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.