Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1910–1924 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Francis v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad
neutral
2 sentences1916Co. v. Francis, 110 Mo. 387 , 19 W. 935 , it is said: “It would be most unreasonable and unjust after imposing upon the master the duty of promulgating a rule for securing the safety of his' servant, to permit the servant to recover from the master damages for injuries which the observance of the rule would have prevented. 1913Co. v. Seakford, 106 Va. 93, 98 , 55 S. E. 556, 557 , it is said: “The master does not discharge his whole duty to his employees by formulating and promulgating proper rules, but he owes the further duty to use reasonable care and vigilance in the enforcement of such rules. * * * The master is, however, not an insurer of the observance of rules, though obliged to use reasonable care to enforce them.” ■ In Southern Railway Go. v. Johnson, 111 Ya. 499, 505, 69 S. E. 323, 325 , this court, quoting with approval from 110 Mo. 387 , said: “It would be most unreasonable and unjust, after imposing upo | 4 | 1910–1916 |
Manly v. . Abernathy
green
1 sentence1924Indeed, the situation calls for the observance of the rule of the statute even inore urgently than where both streets pass on beyond.” In Manly v. Abernathy, 167 N. C. 220 , 83 S. E. pages 343-345 (decided November 11, 1914),.it is said:- “The case turns upon the applicability of Public-Laws of 1913, e. 107, at page 188, which reads as-follows: (l) When ‘approaching a pedestrian who is-upon the traveled part of any highway, and not upon, a sidewalk, and upon' approaching any intersection-highway or a curve, or a corner in a highway where the operator’s view is obstructed, every person operat i | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Lane Bros. v. Seakford
green
2 sentences1913Co. v. Seakford, 106 Va. 93, 98 , 55 S. E. 556, 557 , it is said: “The master does not discharge his whole duty to his employees by formulating and promulgating proper rules, but he owes the further duty to use reasonable care and vigilance in the enforcement of such rules. * * * The master is, however, not an insurer of the observance of rules, though obliged to use reasonable care to enforce them.” ■ In Southern Railway Go. v. Johnson, 111 Ya. 499, 505, 69 S. E. 323, 325 , this court, quoting with approval from 110 Mo. 387 , said: “It would be most unreasonable and unjust, after imposing upo 1913Co. v. Seakford, 106 Va. 93, 98 , 55 S. E. 556, 557 , it is said: “The master does not discharge his whole duty to his employees by formulating and promulgating proper rules, but he owes the further duty to use reasonable care and vigilance in the enforcement of such rules. * * * The master is, however, not an insurer of the observance of rules, though obliged to use reasonable care to enforce them.” ■ In Southern Railway Go. v. Johnson, 111 Ya. 499, 505, 69 S. E. 323, 325 , this court, quoting with approval from 110 Mo. 387 , said: “It would be most unreasonable and unjust, after imposing upo | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Southern Railway Co. v. Johnson's Administratrix
neutral
1 sentence1913Co. v. Seakford, 106 Va. 93, 98 , 55 S. E. 556, 557 , it is said: “The master does not discharge his whole duty to his employees by formulating and promulgating proper rules, but he owes the further duty to use reasonable care and vigilance in the enforcement of such rules. * * * The master is, however, not an insurer of the observance of rules, though obliged to use reasonable care to enforce them.” ■ In Southern Railway Go. v. Johnson, 111 Ya. 499, 505, 69 S. E. 323, 325 , this court, quoting with approval from 110 Mo. 387 , said: “It would be most unreasonable and unjust, after imposing upo | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.