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.
7 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COM'Rgreen2 sentences2018Pt. 2, De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32 , 83 S.E. 88 (1914). 1 Petitioner’s reliance on Brown v. City of Wheeling, 212 W.Va. 121 , 569 S.E.2d 197 (2002), is misplaced because it regards the “special errand” exception to the “going and coming rule.” In Harris v. State Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, 158 W.Va. 66 , 70–71, 208 S.E.2d 291 , 293–94 (1974), we described the “special errand” exception as follows: “When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual 2009In Harris v. State Workmen’s Compensation Comm’r, 158 W.Va. 66, 70-71 , 208 S.E.2d 291, 293-94 (1974), this Court explained: “When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual going and coming rule, the journey may be brought within the course of employment by the fact that the trouble and time of making the journey, or the special inconvenience, hazard, or urgency of making it in the particular circumstances, is itself sufficiently substantial to be viewed as an integral part of the | 3 | 4 |
Courtless v. Jolliffegreen2 sentences2009In accord, Courtless v. Jolliffe, 203 W.Va. 258, 263 , 507 S.E.2d 136, 141 (1998). 2009In accord, Courtless v. Jolliffe, 203 W.Va. 258, 263 , 507 S.E.2d 136, 141 (1998). | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
neutral
2 sentences2018Pt. 2, De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32 , 83 S.E. 88 (1914). 1 Petitioner’s reliance on Brown v. City of Wheeling, 212 W.Va. 121 , 569 S.E.2d 197 (2002), is misplaced because it regards the “special errand” exception to the “going and coming rule.” In Harris v. State Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, 158 W.Va. 66 , 70–71, 208 S.E.2d 291 , 293–94 (1974), we described the “special errand” exception as follows: “When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual 2009In Harris v. State Workmen’s Compensation Comm’r, 158 W.Va. 66, 70-71 , 208 S.E.2d 291, 293-94 (1974), this Court explained: “When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual going and coming rule, the journey may be brought within the course of employment by the fact that the trouble and time of making the journey, or the special inconvenience, hazard, or urgency of making it in the particular circumstances, is itself sufficiently substantial to be viewed as an integral part of the | 4 | 2002–2018 |
Canoy v. State Compensation Commissioner
neutral
2 sentences1974Commissioner, 113 W.Va. 914 , 170 S.E. 184 ." According to Professor Larson, the rule is broadly stated and defined as follows: "When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual going and coming rule, the *294 journey may be brought within the course of employment by the fact that the trouble and time of making the journey, or the special inconvenience, hazard, or urgency of making it in the particular circumstances, is itself sufficiently substantial to be viewed as an integral part 1974Commissioner, 113 W.Va. 914 , 170 S.E. 184 ." According to Professor Larson, the rule is broadly stated and defined as follows: "When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual going and coming rule, the *294 journey may be brought within the course of employment by the fact that the trouble and time of making the journey, or the special inconvenience, hazard, or urgency of making it in the particular circumstances, is itself sufficiently substantial to be viewed as an integral part | 2 | 1974–1974 |
Brown v. City of Wheeling
green
2 sentences2018Pt. 2, De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32 , 83 S.E. 88 (1914). 1 Petitioner’s reliance on Brown v. City of Wheeling, 212 W.Va. 121 , 569 S.E.2d 197 (2002), is misplaced because it regards the “special errand” exception to the “going and coming rule.” In Harris v. State Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, 158 W.Va. 66 , 70–71, 208 S.E.2d 291 , 293–94 (1974), we described the “special errand” exception as follows: “When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual 2018Pt. 2, De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32 , 83 S.E. 88 (1914). 1 Petitioner’s reliance on Brown v. City of Wheeling, 212 W.Va. 121 , 569 S.E.2d 197 (2002), is misplaced because it regards the “special errand” exception to the “going and coming rule.” In Harris v. State Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, 158 W.Va. 66 , 70–71, 208 S.E.2d 291 , 293–94 (1974), we described the “special errand” exception as follows: “When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual | 1 | 2018–2018 |
De Constantin v. Public Service Commission
neutral
2 sentences2018Pt. 2, De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32 , 83 S.E. 88 (1914). 1 Petitioner’s reliance on Brown v. City of Wheeling, 212 W.Va. 121 , 569 S.E.2d 197 (2002), is misplaced because it regards the “special errand” exception to the “going and coming rule.” In Harris v. State Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, 158 W.Va. 66 , 70–71, 208 S.E.2d 291 , 293–94 (1974), we described the “special errand” exception as follows: “When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual 2018Pt. 2, De Constantin v. Public Service Commission, 75 W.Va. 32 , 83 S.E. 88 (1914). 1 Petitioner’s reliance on Brown v. City of Wheeling, 212 W.Va. 121 , 569 S.E.2d 197 (2002), is misplaced because it regards the “special errand” exception to the “going and coming rule.” In Harris v. State Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, 158 W.Va. 66 , 70–71, 208 S.E.2d 291 , 293–94 (1974), we described the “special errand” exception as follows: “When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Standley v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence1998In Standley v. Johnson, 276 So.2d 77 (Fl. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.