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.
9 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 1993–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Horngreen2 sentences2014Id. at 381, 225 S.E.2d at 598-99. "'[I]f the work performed by an employee of the contractor or subcontractor is part of the owner's trade, business, or occupation,'" the owner is the statutory employer of the 2 Code § 65.2-302(B) and (C) apply the same standard to situations in which a contractor contracts with a subcontractor, or a subcontractor contracts with another subcontractor. 8 employee and "'is liable for compensation as though the worker were his own employee.'" Cinnamon v. IBM Corp., 238 Va. 471, 478 , 384 S.E.2d 618, 621 (1989) (quoting Smith v. Horn, 232 Va. 302, 305-06 , 351 S.E 2014Id. at 381, 225 S.E.2d at 598-99. "'[I]f the work performed by an employee of the contractor or subcontractor is part of the owner's trade, business, or occupation,'" the owner is the statutory employer of the 2 Code § 65.2-302(B) and (C) apply the same standard to situations in which a contractor contracts with a subcontractor, or a subcontractor contracts with another subcontractor. 8 employee and "'is liable for compensation as though the worker were his own employee.'" Cinnamon v. IBM Corp., 238 Va. 471, 478 , 384 S.E.2d 618, 621 (1989) (quoting Smith v. Horn, 232 Va. 302, 305-06 , 351 S.E | 3 | 3 |
Princess Anne Builders, Inc. v. Faucettegreen2 sentences2020Consequently, MMPA is not Divino’s statutory employer under Code § 65.2-302(B).5 4 This point distinguishes the case from Princess Anne Builders, Inc. v. Faucette, 37 Va. App. 102 (2001), which Divino contends controls here. 2020Consequently, MMPA is not Divino’s statutory employer under Code § 65.2-302(B).5 4 This point distinguishes the case from Princess Anne Builders, Inc. v. Faucette, 37 Va. App. 102 (2001), which Divino contends controls here. | 2 | 3 |
Cinnamon v. International Business MacHines Corp.green2 sentences2014Id. at 381, 225 S.E.2d at 598-99. "'[I]f the work performed by an employee of the contractor or subcontractor is part of the owner's trade, business, or occupation,'" the owner is the statutory employer of the 2 Code § 65.2-302(B) and (C) apply the same standard to situations in which a contractor contracts with a subcontractor, or a subcontractor contracts with another subcontractor. 8 employee and "'is liable for compensation as though the worker were his own employee.'" Cinnamon v. IBM Corp., 238 Va. 471, 478 , 384 S.E.2d 618, 621 (1989) (quoting Smith v. Horn, 232 Va. 302, 305-06 , 351 S.E 2014Id. at 381, 225 S.E.2d at 598-99. "'[I]f the work performed by an employee of the contractor or subcontractor is part of the owner's trade, business, or occupation,'" the owner is the statutory employer of the 2 Code § 65.2-302(B) and (C) apply the same standard to situations in which a contractor contracts with a subcontractor, or a subcontractor contracts with another subcontractor. 8 employee and "'is liable for compensation as though the worker were his own employee.'" Cinnamon v. IBM Corp., 238 Va. 471, 478 , 384 S.E.2d 618, 621 (1989) (quoting Smith v. Horn, 232 Va. 302, 305-06 , 351 S.E | 2 | 3 |
Sweeten v. Kinggreen2 sentences2014Id. at 381, 225 S.E.2d at 598-99. "'[I]f the work performed by an employee of the contractor or subcontractor is part of the owner's trade, business, or occupation,'" the owner is the statutory employer of the 2 Code § 65.2-302(B) and (C) apply the same standard to situations in which a contractor contracts with a subcontractor, or a subcontractor contracts with another subcontractor. 8 employee and "'is liable for compensation as though the worker were his own employee.'" Cinnamon v. IBM Corp., 238 Va. 471, 478 , 384 S.E.2d 618, 621 (1989) (quoting Smith v. Horn, 232 Va. 302, 305-06 , 351 S.E 2014Id. at 381, 225 S.E.2d at 598-99. "'[I]f the work performed by an employee of the contractor or subcontractor is part of the owner's trade, business, or occupation,'" the owner is the statutory employer of the 2 Code § 65.2-302(B) and (C) apply the same standard to situations in which a contractor contracts with a subcontractor, or a subcontractor contracts with another subcontractor. 8 employee and "'is liable for compensation as though the worker were his own employee.'" Cinnamon v. IBM Corp., 238 Va. 471, 478 , 384 S.E.2d 618, 621 (1989) (quoting Smith v. Horn, 232 Va. 302, 305-06 , 351 S.E | 2 | 2 |
Bosley v. Shepherdgreen2 sentences2014Code § 65.2-302(A) provides that when any owner contracts with another to perform any work within the owner’s trade, business or occupation, the owner shall be liable to pay to any worker on the job “any compensation under this title which he would have been liable to pay if the worker had been immediately employed by him.” Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 284 Va. 677 , 681, 733 S.E.2d 648 , 651 (2012) (quoting Code § 65.2-302(A)). “‘[W]hether a particular person or entity is the statutory employer of an injured employee is a jurisdictional matter presenting a mixed question o 2014Code § 65.2-302(A) provides that when any owner contracts with another to perform any work within the owner’s trade, business or occupation, the owner shall be liable to pay to any worker on the job “any compensation under this title which he would have been liable to pay if the worker had been immediately employed by him.” Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 284 Va. 677 , 681, 733 S.E.2d 648 , 651 (2012) (quoting Code § 65.2-302(A)). “‘[W]hether a particular person or entity is the statutory employer of an injured employee is a jurisdictional matter presenting a mixed question o | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moore v. Virginia International Terminals
green
2 sentences2014Code § 65.2-302(A) provides that when any owner contracts with another to perform any work within the owner’s trade, business or occupation, the owner shall be liable to pay to any worker on the job “any compensation under this title which he would have been liable to pay if the worker had been immediately employed by him.” Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 284 Va. 677 , 681, 733 S.E.2d 648 , 651 (2012) (quoting Code § 65.2-302(A)). “‘[W]hether a particular person or entity is the statutory employer of an injured employee is a jurisdictional matter presenting a mixed question o 2014Code § 65.2-302(A) provides that when any owner contracts with another to perform any work within the owner’s trade, business or occupation, the owner shall be liable to pay to any worker on the job “any compensation under this title which he would have been liable to pay if the worker had been immediately employed by him.” Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 284 Va. 677 , 681, 733 S.E.2d 648 , 651 (2012) (quoting Code § 65.2-302(A)). “‘[W]hether a particular person or entity is the statutory employer of an injured employee is a jurisdictional matter presenting a mixed question o | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuildng & Drydock Co.
green
2 sentences2014Code § 65.2-302(A) provides that when any owner contracts with another to perform any work within the owner’s trade, business or occupation, the owner shall be liable to pay to any worker on the job “any compensation under this title which he would have been liable to pay if the worker had been immediately employed by him.” Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 284 Va. 677 , 681, 733 S.E.2d 648 , 651 (2012) (quoting Code § 65.2-302(A)). “‘[W]hether a particular person or entity is the statutory employer of an injured employee is a jurisdictional matter presenting a mixed question o 2014Code § 65.2-302(A) provides that when any owner contracts with another to perform any work within the owner’s trade, business or occupation, the owner shall be liable to pay to any worker on the job “any compensation under this title which he would have been liable to pay if the worker had been immediately employed by him.” Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., 284 Va. 677 , 681, 733 S.E.2d 648 , 651 (2012) (quoting Code § 65.2-302(A)). “‘[W]hether a particular person or entity is the statutory employer of an injured employee is a jurisdictional matter presenting a mixed question o | 1 | 2014–2014 |
R. Richard Wilton, Jr Inc v. Roger A. Gibson
green
2 sentences2000In F. Richard Wilton, Jr., Inc. v. Gibson, 22 Va. App. 606 , 471 S.E.2d 832 (1996), we discussed the subcontracted-fraction test and the method to be used to analyze statutory employer status under Code § 65.2-302(B) as follows: "In the context of the construction business, [the subcontracted-fraction prong] relates to a general contractor, the party obligated by the main contract with the owner to complete the whole project. 2000In F. Richard Wilton, Jr., Inc. v. Gibson, 22 Va. App. 606 , 471 S.E.2d 832 (1996), we discussed the subcontracted-fraction test and the method to be used to analyze statutory employer status under Code § 65.2-302(B) as follows: "In the context of the construction business, [the subcontracted-fraction prong] relates to a general contractor, the party obligated by the main contract with the owner to complete the whole project. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sykes v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
green
2 sentences1993However, both are subject to liability for awards to the claimants under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act because of their status as statutory employers pursuant to Code § 65.2-302. 1 *838 In Sykes v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 186 Va. 116 , 41 S.E.2d 469 (1947), the Supreme Court of Virginia explained the purposes of “statutory employer” statutes as follows: It clearly appears to be the purpose of section 20(a) to bring within the operation of the Compensation Act all persons engaged in any work that is a part of the trade, business or occupation of the original party who undert 1993However, both are subject to liability for awards to the claimants under the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act because of their status as statutory employers pursuant to Code § 65.2-302. 1 *838 In Sykes v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 186 Va. 116 , 41 S.E.2d 469 (1947), the Supreme Court of Virginia explained the purposes of “statutory employer” statutes as follows: It clearly appears to be the purpose of section 20(a) to bring within the operation of the Compensation Act all persons engaged in any work that is a part of the trade, business or occupation of the original party who undert | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.