11 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1911–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa 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 |
|---|---|---|
In RE the Detention of Anthony Geltz Anthony Geltzgreen2 sentences2021“No court, under the guise of judicial construction, may add words of qualification to the statute in question or change its terms.” Kelly v. Brewer, 239 N.W.2d 109, 114 (Iowa 1976); see also In re Det. of Geltz, 840 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Iowa 2013) 34 (“[W]e are bound to follow the legislature’s definitions and may not add words or change terms under the guise of judicial construction.” (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Dep’t of Transp. v. Soward, 650 N.W.2d 569, 571 (Iowa 2002))). 2021“No court, under the guise of judicial construction, may add words of qualification to the statute in question or change its terms.” Kelly v. Brewer, 239 N.W.2d 109, 114 (Iowa 1976); see also In re Det. of Geltz, 840 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Iowa 2013) 34 (“[W]e are bound to follow the legislature’s definitions and may not add words or change terms under the guise of judicial construction.” (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Dep’t of Transp. v. Soward, 650 N.W.2d 569, 571 (Iowa 2002))). | 2 | 2 |
Iowa Department of Transportation v. Sowardgreen2 sentences2021“No court, under the guise of judicial construction, may add words of qualification to the statute in question or change its terms.” Kelly v. Brewer, 239 N.W.2d 109, 114 (Iowa 1976); see also In re Det. of Geltz, 840 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Iowa 2013) 34 (“[W]e are bound to follow the legislature’s definitions and may not add words or change terms under the guise of judicial construction.” (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Dep’t of Transp. v. Soward, 650 N.W.2d 569, 571 (Iowa 2002))). 2021“No court, under the guise of judicial construction, may add words of qualification to the statute in question or change its terms.” Kelly v. Brewer, 239 N.W.2d 109, 114 (Iowa 1976); see also In re Det. of Geltz, 840 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Iowa 2013) 34 (“[W]e are bound to follow the legislature’s definitions and may not add words or change terms under the guise of judicial construction.” (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Dep’t of Transp. v. Soward, 650 N.W.2d 569, 571 (Iowa 2002))). | 2 | 2 |
Kelly v. Brewergreen2 sentences2021“No court, under the guise of judicial construction, may add words of qualification to the statute in question or change its terms.” Kelly v. Brewer, 239 N.W.2d 109, 114 (Iowa 1976); see also In re Det. of Geltz, 840 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Iowa 2013) 34 (“[W]e are bound to follow the legislature’s definitions and may not add words or change terms under the guise of judicial construction.” (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Dep’t of Transp. v. Soward, 650 N.W.2d 569, 571 (Iowa 2002))). 2021“No court, under the guise of judicial construction, may add words of qualification to the statute in question or change its terms.” Kelly v. Brewer, 239 N.W.2d 109, 114 (Iowa 1976); see also In re Det. of Geltz, 840 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Iowa 2013) 34 (“[W]e are bound to follow the legislature’s definitions and may not add words or change terms under the guise of judicial construction.” (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Dep’t of Transp. v. Soward, 650 N.W.2d 569, 571 (Iowa 2002))). | 2 | 2 |
Jean G. Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Company and Eastman Chemical Company, D/B/A Texas Eastman Companygreen2 sentences2017Finally, the Ray court noted the Fifth and Eighth Circuits had adopted the most restrictive test, namely, the “ultimate employment action” test which 148 required actions such as hiring, firing, promoting, and demoting to support a retaliation claim. 217 F.3d at 1242; see Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir. 1997); Ledergerber, 122 F.3d at 1144 . 2017Finally, the Ray court noted the Fifth and Eighth Circuits had adopted the most restrictive test, namely, the “ultimate employment action” test which 148 required actions such as hiring, firing, promoting, and demoting to support a retaliation claim. 217 F.3d at 1242; see Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir. 1997); Ledergerber, 122 F.3d at 1144 . | 2 | 2 |
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastrogreen2 sentences2015McIntyre Mach., 564 U.S. at ___ , 131 S. Ct. at 2788 , 180 L. 2015McIntyre Mach., 564 U.S. at ___ , 131 S. Ct. at 2788 , 180 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Odom v. Graygreen | 1 | 1 |
Don Chuy, in No. 77-1412 v. The Philadelphia Eagles Football Club (Sued as \The Philadelphia Eagles\")green1 sentence1983(Marv.) 88 , 37 A. 39 (1893) (one commentator says no authority on point); Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Austin, 72 Ga.App. 289 , 33 S.E.2d 718 (1945) (common carrier); Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor, 266 Ind. 310 , 362 N.E.2d 845 (1977) (all acts of corporate agent attributable to corporation); Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350 , 13 P. 609 (1887); (more recent decisions cloud the issue); Memphis & Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Nagel, 97 Ky. 9 , 29 S.W. 743 (1895) (common carrier); Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 223-24 (1869) (common carrier); Embre | 1 | 1 |
Pendowski v. Patent Scaffolding Co.green2 sentences1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit 1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit | 1 | 1 |
| Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railwaygreen | 1 | 1 |
Gerlach Et Ux. v. Pgh. Railways Co.green1 sentence1983(Marv.) 88 , 37 A. 39 (1893) (one commentator says no authority on point); Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Austin, 72 Ga.App. 289 , 33 S.E.2d 718 (1945) (common carrier); Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor, 266 Ind. 310 , 362 N.E.2d 845 (1977) (all acts of corporate agent attributable to corporation); Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350 , 13 P. 609 (1887); (more recent decisions cloud the issue); Memphis & Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Nagel, 97 Ky. 9 , 29 S.W. 743 (1895) (common carrier); Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 223-24 (1869) (common carrier); Embre | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White
green
2 sentences2017In 2006, the Supreme Court entered the fray in Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at 53 , 126 S. Ct. at 2405 . 2017In 2006, the Supreme Court entered the fray in Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at 53 , 126 S. Ct. at 2405 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Diane LEDERGERBER, Appellant, v. Gary STANGLER; Carmen Schultze, Appellees
green
2 sentences2017Finally, the Ray court noted the Fifth and Eighth Circuits had adopted the most restrictive test, namely, the “ultimate employment action” test which 148 required actions such as hiring, firing, promoting, and demoting to support a retaliation claim. 217 F.3d at 1242; see Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir. 1997); Ledergerber, 122 F.3d at 1144 . 2017Finally, the Ray court noted the Fifth and Eighth Circuits had adopted the most restrictive test, namely, the “ultimate employment action” test which 148 required actions such as hiring, firing, promoting, and demoting to support a retaliation claim. 217 F.3d at 1242; see Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir. 1997); Ledergerber, 122 F.3d at 1144 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008Id. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Everett v. Brewer
green
1 sentence2018As such, as the supreme 9 court has done, “we decline to adopt a more restrictive standard than that of the clause’s federal counterpart.” Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
William J. Ray v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General
green
1 sentence2017Finally, the Ray court noted the Fifth and Eighth Circuits had adopted the most restrictive test, namely, the “ultimate employment action” test which required actions such as hiring, firing, promoting, and demoting to support a retaliation claim. 217 F.3d at 1242 ; see Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir. 1997); Ledergerber, 122 F.3d at 1144 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Openshaw v. Oregon Automobile Insurance Co. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Stroud v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Austin green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc.
green
2 sentences1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit 1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whitt | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Winkler v. Hartford Acc. and Ind. Co. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Boyce
neutral
1 sentence1983(Marv.) 88 , 37 A. 39 (1893) (one commentator says no authority on point); Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Austin, 72 Ga.App. 289 , 33 S.E.2d 718 (1945) (common carrier); Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor, 266 Ind. 310 , 362 N.E.2d 845 (1977) (all acts of corporate agent attributable to corporation); Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350 , 13 P. 609 (1887); (more recent decisions cloud the issue); Memphis & Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Nagel, 97 Ky. 9 , 29 S.W. 743 (1895) (common carrier); Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 223-24 (1869) (common carrier); Embre | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Ford v. Charles Warner Co. neutral | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Jenkins v. Whittaker Corp. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Western Coach Corporation v. Vaughn green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Lucas v. Michigan Central Railroad green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Samedan Oil Corp. v. Neeld
green
2 sentences1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit 1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Garcia v. Samson's, Inc. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Sandifer Oil Co., Inc. v. DEW
green
2 sentences1983(Marv.) 88 , 37 A. 39 (1893) (one commentator says no authority on point); Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Austin, 72 Ga.App. 289 , 33 S.E.2d 718 (1945) (common carrier); Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor, 266 Ind. 310 , 362 N.E.2d 845 (1977) (all acts of corporate agent attributable to corporation); Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350 , 13 P. 609 (1887); (more recent decisions cloud the issue); Memphis & Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Nagel, 97 Ky. 9 , 29 S.W. 743 (1895) (common carrier); Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 223-24 (1869) (common carrier); Embre 1983(Marv.) 88 , 37 A. 39 (1893) (one commentator says no authority on point); Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Austin, 72 Ga.App. 289 , 33 S.E.2d 718 (1945) (common carrier); Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor, 266 Ind. 310 , 362 N.E.2d 845 (1977) (all acts of corporate agent attributable to corporation); Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350 , 13 P. 609 (1887); (more recent decisions cloud the issue); Memphis & Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Nagel, 97 Ky. 9 , 29 S.W. 743 (1895) (common carrier); Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 223-24 (1869) (common carrier); Embre | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Summa Corp. v. Greenspun
green
2 sentences1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit 1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Rickman v. Safeway Stores, Inc. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Campen v. Stone
green
2 sentences1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit 1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whitt | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.
green
2 sentences1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit 1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whitt | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Rinker v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1983(Marv.) 88 , 37 A. 39 (1893) (one commentator says no authority on point); Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Austin, 72 Ga.App. 289 , 33 S.E.2d 718 (1945) (common carrier); Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor, 266 Ind. 310 , 362 N.E.2d 845 (1977) (all acts of corporate agent attributable to corporation); Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350 , 13 P. 609 (1887); (more recent decisions cloud the issue); Memphis & Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Nagel, 97 Ky. 9 , 29 S.W. 743 (1895) (common carrier); Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 223-24 (1869) (common carrier); Embre | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, a Corporation v. Sherman Lethcoe
green
2 sentences1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit 1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whitt | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Clary Insurance Agency v. Doyle green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Sidney Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
green
2 sentences1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit 1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whitt | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Embrey v. Holly green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Mercury Motors Exp., Inc. v. Smith
green
2 sentences1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit 1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whitt | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Agarwal v. Johnson green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
HOLLAND FURANCE COMPANY v. Robson
green
2 sentences1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit 1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Clemmons v. Life Insurance Company of Georgia
green
2 sentences1983(Marv.) 88 , 37 A. 39 (1893) (one commentator says no authority on point); Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Austin, 72 Ga.App. 289 , 33 S.E.2d 718 (1945) (common carrier); Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor, 266 Ind. 310 , 362 N.E.2d 845 (1977) (all acts of corporate agent attributable to corporation); Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350 , 13 P. 609 (1887); (more recent decisions cloud the issue); Memphis & Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Nagel, 97 Ky. 9 , 29 S.W. 743 (1895) (common carrier); Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 223-24 (1869) (common carrier); Embre 1983(Marv.) 88 , 37 A. 39 (1893) (one commentator says no authority on point); Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Austin, 72 Ga.App. 289 , 33 S.E.2d 718 (1945) (common carrier); Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor, 266 Ind. 310 , 362 N.E.2d 845 (1977) (all acts of corporate agent attributable to corporation); Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350 , 13 P. 609 (1887); (more recent decisions cloud the issue); Memphis & Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Nagel, 97 Ky. 9 , 29 S.W. 743 (1895) (common carrier); Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 223-24 (1869) (common carrier); Embre | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Gray v. Allison Division, General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit 1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Conti v. Walter Winters, Inc. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Shortle v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Mahanna v. Westland Oil Company
green
2 sentences1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whit 1983The states which follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule are: Agarwal v. Johnson, 25 Cal.3d 932 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 (1979) (recognized § 909 as law of the state); Holland Furnace Co. v. Robson, 157 Colo. 347 , 402 P.2d 628 (1965) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217C); Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 71 Conn. 369 , 42 A. 67 (1899); Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc., 419 A.2d 986 (D.C.1980) (complicity rule); Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981) (abandoned course of employment rule in facts similar to our case); Jenkins v. Whitt | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Jordan v. Melville Shoe Corp. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky v. Gunn
green
2 sentences1983Of the fifty states and the District of Columbia, twenty-two states follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule; twenty states follow the course of employment rule; four states do not allow punitive damages; four states have not addressed the issue; and the rule in Iowa is in question. *864 The twenty states which follow the course of employment rule are: Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky v. Gunn, 234 Ala. 598 , 176 So. 332 (1937) (oil company's agent sold adulterated oil); Western Coach Corp. v. Vaughn, 9 Ariz.App. 336 , 452 P.2d 117 (1969) (scope of employment); Miller v. Blanton, 21 1983Of the fifty states and the District of Columbia, twenty-two states follow either the Restatement or a more restrictive rule; twenty states follow the course of employment rule; four states do not allow punitive damages; four states have not addressed the issue; and the rule in Iowa is in question. *864 The twenty states which follow the course of employment rule are: Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky v. Gunn, 234 Ala. 598 , 176 So. 332 (1937) (oil company's agent sold adulterated oil); Western Coach Corp. v. Vaughn, 9 Ariz.App. 336 , 452 P.2d 117 (1969) (scope of employment); Miller v. Blanton, 21 | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Miller v. Blanton green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor
green
2 sentences1983(Marv.) 88 , 37 A. 39 (1893) (one commentator says no authority on point); Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Austin, 72 Ga.App. 289 , 33 S.E.2d 718 (1945) (common carrier); Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor, 266 Ind. 310 , 362 N.E.2d 845 (1977) (all acts of corporate agent attributable to corporation); Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350 , 13 P. 609 (1887); (more recent decisions cloud the issue); Memphis & Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Nagel, 97 Ky. 9 , 29 S.W. 743 (1895) (common carrier); Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 223-24 (1869) (common carrier); Embre 1983(Marv.) 88 , 37 A. 39 (1893) (one commentator says no authority on point); Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Austin, 72 Ga.App. 289 , 33 S.E.2d 718 (1945) (common carrier); Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor, 266 Ind. 310 , 362 N.E.2d 845 (1977) (all acts of corporate agent attributable to corporation); Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350 , 13 P. 609 (1887); (more recent decisions cloud the issue); Memphis & Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Nagel, 97 Ky. 9 , 29 S.W. 743 (1895) (common carrier); Goddard v. Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, 57 Me. 202, 223-24 (1869) (common carrier); Embre | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.