7 Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Buzzo v. Woolridge Trucking, Inc.green2 sentences2003"To establish this defense, the employer must prove: (1) the rule was reasonable; (2) the employee knew of the rule; (3) the rule was for the employee's benefit; and (4) the employee intentionally performed the forbidden act." Dan River, Inc. v. Giggetts, 34 Va. App. 297, 302 , 541 S.E.2d 294, 297 (2001) (citing Buzzo v. Woolridge Trucking, Inc., 17 Va. App. 327, 332 , 437 S.E.2d 205, 208 (1993)). 2003"To establish this defense, the employer must prove: (1) the rule was reasonable; (2) the employee knew of the rule; (3) the rule was for the employee's benefit; and (4) the employee intentionally performed the forbidden act." Dan River, Inc. v. Giggetts, 34 Va. App. 297, 302 , 541 S.E.2d 294, 297 (2001) (citing Buzzo v. Woolridge Trucking, Inc., 17 Va. App. 327, 332 , 437 S.E.2d 205, 208 (1993)). | 4 | 4 |
Dan River, Inc. v. Giggettsgreen2 sentences2023“To establish this defense, the employer must prove: (1) the rule was reasonable; (2) the employee knew of the rule; (3) the rule was for the employee’s benefit; and (4) the employee intentionally performed the forbidden act.” Dan River, Inc. v. Giggets, 34 Va. App. 297, 302 (2001); see also Layne v. Crist Elec. 2003"To establish this defense, the employer must prove: (1) the rule was reasonable; (2) the employee knew of the rule; (3) the rule was for the employee's benefit; and (4) the employee intentionally performed the forbidden act." Dan River, Inc. v. Giggetts, 34 Va. App. 297, 302 , 541 S.E.2d 294, 297 (2001) (citing Buzzo v. Woolridge Trucking, Inc., 17 Va. App. 327, 332 , 437 S.E.2d 205, 208 (1993)). | 2 | 2 |
Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Thaxtongreen2 sentences2005See Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Thaxton, 161 Va. 863 , 172 S.E. 261 (1934). 2005See Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Thaxton, 161 Va. 863 , 172 S.E. 261 (1934). | 2 | 2 |
Melvin L. Layne v. Crist Electrical Contractor, Inc. and Assurance Services Corporationgreen1 sentence2023Contractor, Inc., 64 Va. App. 342, 349-50 (2015). “[T]he employee may rebut the defense by showing that the rule was not kept alive by bona fide enforcement or that there was a valid reason for his inability to obey the rule.” Buzzo v. Woolridge Trucking, Inc., 17 Va. App. 327, 332 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Brockway v. Eastergreen1 sentence2006Id. at 271, 456 S.E.2d at 161 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Virginia Electric and Power Companygreen1 sentence2006Id. at 271, 456 S.E.2d at 161 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.