Tomlin v. Vance International, Inc. (1996)

green · 32 citation events across 5 courts. Showing the 11 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 11

Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

199720112026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Willie Carl Emberton, Sr. v. White Supply & Glass Company (2004)

Rule Authority · Va. Ct. App. · 3 citations in this opinion

In other words, “the purpose of [this section] is to reimburse an employer who is compelled to pay compensation as the result of the negligence of a third party and to prevent an employee from obtaining a double recovery of funds.” Tomlin v. Vance Int’l, Inc., 22 Va.App. 448, 452 , 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996).

green Corey M. Stowers v. Georgia Pacific, LLC and Old Republic Insurance Company of North America (2022)

Rule Authority · Va. Ct. App.

“The employer’s subrogation rights are triggered automatically when the injured employee files a claim against the employer and thereby assigns to the employer any claims against third parties.” Tomlin v. Vance Int’l, Inc., 22 Va. App. 448, 452 (1996).

green Naa Lamiley Williams v. Capital Hospice and Companion Property & Casualty Insurance Company (2016)

Rule Authority · Va. Ct. App.

“The purpose of the statute is to reimburse an employer who is compelled to pay compensation as a result of the negligence of a third party and to prevent an employee from obtaining a double recovery of funds.” Tomlin v. Vance Int’l, 22 Va.App. 448, 452 , 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996).

green Escobar v. Zurich American Insurance (2011)

Rule Authority · Fairfax Cir. Ct.

“The purpose of the statute is to reimburse an employer who is compelled to pay compensation as a result of the negligence of a third party and to prevent an employee from obtaining a double recovery of funds.” Tomlin v. Vance Int'l, 22 Va. App. 448, 452 , 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996) (citation omitted); see also Noblin v. Randolph Corp., 180 Va. 345, 358-59 , 23 S.E.2d 209, 214 (1942).

citation omitted

green Cynthia Brooke Evans v. Xerox Corporation, Inc. and Continental Casualty Company (2009)

Rule Authority · Va. Ct. App.

Tomlin v. Vance Int’l, 22 Va. App. 448, 452 , 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996).

green Virginia Municipal Group Self-Insurance v. Crawford (2004)

Rule Authority · Salem Cir. Ct.

It is wholly a creature of the statute----”); Tomlin v. Vance Int’l, 22 Va. App. 448, 452 , 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996) (recognizing that “subrogation rights ‘arise’ under the Workers’ Compensation Act”); Crab Orchard Improvement Co. v. Chesapeake & O.

green Henry's Wrecker Service Co. v. Smoot (2001)

Rule Authority · Va. Ct. App.

Tomlin v. Vance Int’l, Inc., 22 Va.App. 448, 452 , 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996).

green Overhead Door Co. of Norfolk v. Lewis (1999)

Rule Authority · Va. Ct. App.

“The purpose of the statute is to reimburse an employer who is compelled to pay compensation as a result of the negligence *58 of a third party and to prevent an employee from obtaining a double recovery of funds.” Tomlin v. Vance Int'l, Inc., 22 Va.App. 448, 452 , 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996).

green Michigan Mutual Insurance v. Smoot (2001)

Cited (see also) · E.D. Va. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion

See, e.g., Tomlin v. Vance Int’l, Inc., 22 Va.App. 448 , 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (Va.1996) (noting that the statute was crafted to prevent double recovery); Crab Orchard Improvement Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry.

green Michigan Mutual Insurance v. Smoot (2001)

Cited (see also) · E.D. Va. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion

See, e.g., Tomlin v. Vance Int’l, Inc., 22 Va.App. 448 , 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996); Wood v. Caudle-Hyatt, Inc., 18 Va.App. 391 , 444 S.E.2d 3, 8 (1994).

green Michigan Mutual Insurance v. Smoot (2000)

Cited (see also) · E.D. Va. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion

See, e.g., Tomlin v. Vance Int’l, Inc., 22 Va.App. 448 , 470 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1996) (noting that the statute was crafted to prevent double recovery); Crab Orchard Improvement Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry.

noting that the statute was crafted to prevent double recovery