Allied Fibers & Plastics v. Cibula, 428 S.E.2d 905 (Va. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Allied Fibers & Plastics v. Cibula, 428 S.E.2d 905 (Va. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
90 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: James Melvin Ashby v. Ramar Coal Company, Inc. (vactapp, 2007-07-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" James Melvin Ashby v. Ramar Coal Company, Inc. (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cibula v. Allied Fibers & Plastics, 14 Va. App. 319, 324 , 416 S.E.2d 708, 711 (1992) (“An employer’s voluntary payment of an injured employee’s medical bills does not estop the employer from invoking the statute of limitations of Code § 65.1-87 (now Code § 65.2-601).”), aff’d, 245 Va. 337 , 428 S.E.2d 905 (1993) (per curiam); Tuck v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 47 Va. App. 276, 285 , 623 S.E.2d 433, 437 (2005) (“The application of the [imposition] doctrine, however, requires a threshold showing of unfairness: ‘The doctrine focuses on an * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this…
discussed Cited "see" USAir, Inc. v. Robert S. Joyce (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cibula v. Allied Fibers & Plastics, 14 Va. App. 319, 324 , 416 S.E.2d 708, 711 (1992), aff'd, 245 Va. 337 , 428 S.E.2d 905 (1993).
examined Cited "see" USAir, Inc. v. Joyce (4×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cibula v. Allied Fibers & Plastics, 14 Va.App. 319, 324 , 416 S.E.2d 708, 711 (1992), aff'd, 245 Va. 337 , 428 S.E.2d 905 (1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jerry Lee Gibbs v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare id. at 758 , 668 S.E.2d at 156 , with Wagoner v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 476 , 484, 770 S.E.2d 479 , 484 (2015) (“adopt[ing]” this Court’s holding on a particular issue), and Allied Fibers & Plastics v. Cibula, 245 Va. 337, 338 , 428 S.E.2d 905, 906 (1993) (per curiam) (explicitly “adopt[ing]” this Court’s opinion as its own).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alfred Lamar Diggs v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare id. at 758 , 668 S.E.2d at 156 , with Wagoner v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 476 , 484, 770 S.E.2d 479 , 484 (2015) (“adopt[ing]” this Court’s holding on a particular issue), and Allied Fibers & Plastics v. Cibula, 245 Va. 337, 338 , 428 S.E.2d 905, 906 (1993) (explicitly “adopt[ing]” this Court’s opinion as its own).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Odom v. Red Lobster 235 (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also Cibula v. Allied Fibers & Plastics, 14 Va.App. 319, 324-25 , 416 S.E.2d 708, 711 (1992), aff'd, 245 Va. 337 , 428 S.E.2d 905 (1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bristol Newspapers, Inc. v. Shaffer (2×)
Va. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
Bowden, 11 Va. App. at 686-87 , 401 S.E.2d at 886 ; Stuart Circle Hosp. v. Alderson, 223 Va. 205, 209 , 288 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1982); Clark v. United Airlines, 223 Va. 197, 200 , 288 S.E.2d 441, 442-43 (1982); see also Cibula v. Allied Fibers & Plastics, 14 Va. App. 319, 324 , 416 S.E.2d 708, 711 (1992), aff'd, 245 Va. 337 , 428 S.E.2d 905 (1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Allied Fibers & Plastics, Et Al.
v.
Ernest J. Cibula
Record No. 920747.
Supreme Court of Virginia.
Apr 16, 1993.
428 S.E.2d 905
S. Vernon Priddy, III (Mary Louise Kramer; Sarah Y. M. Kirby, on briefs), for appellants., James J. Vergara, Jr. (Peter B. Baruch, on brief), for appellee.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 43 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

In this case, the Industrial Commission of Virginia (now the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission) held that the employer, Allied Fibers & Plastics (Allied), was not equitably estopped from asserting the two-year statute of limitations prescribed by Code[*338] § 65.1-87 (now Code § 65.2-601) and that the claim of the employee, Ernest J. Cibula, was time-barred. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that “[t]he evidence in this record leads unerringly to the conclusion that Allied is estopped from invoking the statute of limitations.” Cibula v. Allied Fibers & Plastics, 14 Va. App. 319, 326, 416 S.E.2d 708, 712 (1992).

In its petition for appeal to this Court, Allied contended that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in holding that the Commission applied an “improper standard” to the question whether Allied was equitably estopped from invoking the statute of limitations, (2) in finding that the case did not present a matter of conflicting evidence or a dispute concerning the Commission’s findings of fact, and (3) in refusing to hold that Cibula had failed to preserve the estoppel question for appeal purposes. Determining that the holding of the Court of Appeals regarding an “improper standard” presented a matter of significant precedential value, Code § 17-116.07(B), and that all three of the claims of error should be reviewed, we awarded Allied an appeal.

Upon consideration of Allied’s contentions, we find there is no error in the judgment under review. Accordingly, we will adopt the Court of Appeals’ opinion as our own and affirm its judgment.

Affirmed.