14 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2006 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Walker Logging v. Paschalgreen2 sentences2000Cohn et al. v. Pauline Haile, 267 Ark. 734 , 589 S.W.2d 600 (Ark.App. 1979) ("We hold there is substantial evidence this claimant is totally disabled."); Walker Logging v. Paschal, 36 Ark.App. 247 , 821 S.W.2d 786 (1992) ("When reviewing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. "). [3] The odd-lot doctrine is accepted in "virtually every jurisdiction" according to Larson's Worker 2000Cohn et al. v. Pauline Haile, 267 Ark. 734 , 589 S.W.2d 600 (Ark.App. 1979) ("We hold there is substantial evidence this claimant is totally disabled."); Walker Logging v. Paschal, 36 Ark.App. 247 , 821 S.W.2d 786 (1992) ("When reviewing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. "). [3] The odd-lot doctrine is accepted in "virtually every jurisdiction" according to Larson's Worker | 2 | 3 |
M. M. Cohn Co. v. Hailegreen2 sentences2000Cohn et al. v. Pauline Haile, 267 Ark. 734 , 589 S.W.2d 600 (Ark.App. 1979) ("We hold there is substantial evidence this claimant is totally disabled."); Walker Logging v. Paschal, 36 Ark.App. 247 , 821 S.W.2d 786 (1992) ("When reviewing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. "). [3] The odd-lot doctrine is accepted in "virtually every jurisdiction" according to Larson's Worker 2000Cohn et al. v. Pauline Haile, 267 Ark. 734 , 589 S.W.2d 600 (Ark.App. 1979) ("We hold there is substantial evidence this claimant is totally disabled."); Walker Logging v. Paschal, 36 Ark.App. 247 , 821 S.W.2d 786 (1992) ("When reviewing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission, we must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. "). [3] The odd-lot doctrine is accepted in "virtually every jurisdiction" according to Larson's Worker | 1 | 5 |
Patterson v. Arkansas Department of Healthgreen2 sentences2000NOTES [1] Neither the Second Injury Fund nor Therma Tru cross-appealed the Commission's award, leaving the only issue on appeal whether Ellison is permanently and totally disabled under the odd-lot doctrine. [2] Patterson v. Arkansas Dep't of Health, 70 Ark.App. 182 , 15 S.W.3d 701 (2000)("we review the evidence and all inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence."); Buford v. Standard Gravel Co., 68 Ark.App. 162 , 5 S.W.3d 478 (1999) ("Our standard of review on appeal is whethe 2000NOTES [1] Neither the Second Injury Fund nor Therma Tru cross-appealed the Commission's award, leaving the only issue on appeal whether Ellison is permanently and totally disabled under the odd-lot doctrine. [2] Patterson v. Arkansas Dep't of Health, 70 Ark.App. 182 , 15 S.W.3d 701 (2000)("we review the evidence and all inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence."); Buford v. Standard Gravel Co., 68 Ark.App. 162 , 5 S.W.3d 478 (1999) ("Our standard of review on appeal is whethe | 1 | 2 |
Buford v. Standard Gravel Co.green2 sentences2000Even in Buford v. Standard Gravel Co., 68 Ark.App. 162 , 5 S.W.3d 478 (1999), relied on by the dissent, we recognized the obligation of the Commission to consider all competent evidence relating to a claimant's disability in determining the applicability of the odd-lot doctrine. 2000Even in Buford v. Standard Gravel Co., 68 Ark.App. 162 , 5 S.W.3d 478 (1999), relied on by the dissent, we recognized the obligation of the Commission to consider all competent evidence relating to a claimant's disability in determining the applicability of the odd-lot doctrine. | 1 | 2 |
Goodwin v. Phillips Petroleum Co.green1 sentence2001See Goodwin v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 72 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Ellison v. Therma-Trugreen2 sentences2000See Ellison v. Therma-Tru, 66 Ark. 2000See Ellison v. Therma Tru, 66 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. v. Brooksgreen2 sentences1985See, e.g., Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc. v. Brooks, 244 Ark. 191 , 424 S.W.2d 377 (1968); M.M. 1985See, e.g., Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc. v. Brooks, 244 Ark. 191 , 424 S.W.2d 377 (1968); M.M. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Perry v. Mar-Bax Shirt Co.
green
2 sentences2000Perry v. Mar-Bax Shirt Co., 16 Ark. 1999Rooney, Ellison, Nelson, and Moser, supra, and Perry v. Mar-Bax Shirt Co., 16 Ark. | 2 | 1999–2000 |
Ellison v. Therma Tru
green
1 sentence2001“The odd-lot doctrine provides benefits for an employee who is injured to the extent that he can only perform services that are so limited in quality, dependability, or quantity that a reasonably stable market for them does not exist and he may be classified as totally disabled.” Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Johnson v. Research-Cottrell
green
1 sentence2000However, in Johnson v. Research-Cottrell, 15 Ark. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Moser v. Arkansas Lime Co.
green
2 sentences2000NOTES [1] Neither the Second Injury Fund nor Therma Tru cross-appealed the Commission's award, leaving the only issue on appeal whether Ellison is permanently and totally disabled under the odd-lot doctrine. [2] Patterson v. Arkansas Dep't of Health, 70 Ark.App. 182 , 15 S.W.3d 701 (2000)("we review the evidence and all inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence."); Buford v. Standard Gravel Co., 68 Ark.App. 162 , 5 S.W.3d 478 (1999) ("Our standard of review on appeal is whethe 2000NOTES [1] Neither the Second Injury Fund nor Therma Tru cross-appealed the Commission's award, leaving the only issue on appeal whether Ellison is permanently and totally disabled under the odd-lot doctrine. [2] Patterson v. Arkansas Dep't of Health, 70 Ark.App. 182 , 15 S.W.3d 701 (2000)("we review the evidence and all inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the findings of the Commission and affirm that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence."); Buford v. Standard Gravel Co., 68 Ark.App. 162 , 5 S.W.3d 478 (1999) ("Our standard of review on appeal is whethe | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Mid-State Construction Co. v. Second Injury Fund
green
2 sentences1999Finally, the Commission erred when it held that the Second Injury Fund is not liable pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 11-9-525 and Mid-State Const. Co. v. Second Injury Fund, 295 Ark. 1 , 746 S.W.2d 539 (1988), and concluded that Ellison failed to prove the third factor required by the Mid-State Construction opinion (that her prior disability or impairment combined with the additional permanent disability or impairment caused by the 1991 compensable injury to result in the current disability status). 1999Finally, the Commission erred when it held that the Second Injury Fund is not liable pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 11-9-525 and Mid-State Const. Co. v. Second Injury Fund, 295 Ark. 1 , 746 S.W.2d 539 (1988), and concluded that Ellison failed to prove the third factor required by the Mid-State Construction opinion (that her prior disability or impairment combined with the additional permanent disability or impairment caused by the 1991 compensable injury to result in the current disability status). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hyman v. Farmland Feed Mill
green
1 sentence1991Hyman v. Farmland Feed Mill, 24 Ark. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.