6 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eriksen v. Nez Perce Countygreen2 sentences2019After affirming based on collateral estoppel, this Court stated: We also affirm the district court's dismissal for the additional reason set out in the Court of Appeals' opinion which adopted the exception to the going and coming rule, described in Eriksen v. Nez Perce County , 72 Idaho 1 , 235 P.2d 736 (1951), where this Court stated that " where going [to work] or returning [from work] in some transportation facility furnished by the employer ," an employee is deemed to be within the course of employment. 72 Idaho at 4 , 235 P.2d 736 (emphasis added). 2019After affirming based on collateral estoppel, this Court stated: We also affirm the district court's dismissal for the additional reason set out in the Court of Appeals' opinion which adopted the exception to the going and coming rule, described in Eriksen v. Nez Perce County , 72 Idaho 1 , 235 P.2d 736 (1951), where this Court stated that " where going [to work] or returning [from work] in some transportation facility furnished by the employer ," an employee is deemed to be within the course of employment. 72 Idaho at 4 , 235 P.2d 736 (emphasis added). | 1 | 3 |
Kelly v. Blue Ribbon Linen Supply, Inc.green2 sentences2019That said, this Court has identified several exceptions to the going and coming rule, "including: (1) the special errand; (2) the traveling employee; (3) peculiar risk, and; [4 the] dual purpose doctrine." Kelly v. Blue Ribbon Linen Supply, Inc. , 159 Idaho 324 , 328, 360 P.3d 333 , 337 (2015) (internal citation omitted). 2019That said, this Court has identified several exceptions to the going and coming rule, "including: (1) the special errand; (2) the traveling employee; (3) peculiar risk, and; [4 the] dual purpose doctrine." Kelly v. Blue Ribbon Linen Supply, Inc. , 159 Idaho 324 , 328, 360 P.3d 333 , 337 (2015) (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Hinojosa v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences1977California has likewise discarded the going-and-coming rule when dealing with situations which "do not involve local commutes en route to fixed places of business at fixed hours." The court held that "... continuing to focus on the artificially perpetuated `rule' and its categories of exceptions causes that board and the courts to lose sight of the primary statutory test of `in the course of employment.'" Hinojosa v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, 8 Cal.3d 150 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 456, 461, fn. 5 , 501 P.2d 1176, 1181, fn. 5 (1973). 1977California has likewise discarded the going-and-coming rule when dealing with situations which "do not involve local commutes en route to fixed places of business at fixed hours." The court held that "... continuing to focus on the artificially perpetuated `rule' and its categories of exceptions causes that board and the courts to lose sight of the primary statutory test of `in the course of employment.'" Hinojosa v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board, 8 Cal.3d 150 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 456, 461, fn. 5 , 501 P.2d 1176, 1181, fn. 5 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Case of Barker
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re South
green
1 sentence1992Cf. In re South, 91 Idaho 786 , 430 P.2d 677 (1967); Curtis v. Shoshone County Sheriff's Office, 102 Idaho 300 , 629 P.2d 696 (1981). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
South v. Bonner County School District No. 82
green
1 sentence1992Cf. In re South, 91 Idaho 786 , 430 P.2d 677 (1967); Curtis v. Shoshone County Sheriff's Office, 102 Idaho 300 , 629 P.2d 696 (1981). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Curtis v. Shoshone County Sheriff's Office
green
2 sentences1992Cf. In re South, 91 Idaho 786 , 430 P.2d 677 (1967); Curtis v. Shoshone County Sheriff's Office, 102 Idaho 300 , 629 P.2d 696 (1981). 1992Cf. In re South, 91 Idaho 786 , 430 P.2d 677 (1967); Curtis v. Shoshone County Sheriff's Office, 102 Idaho 300 , 629 P.2d 696 (1981). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
McCarty v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board
green
2 sentences1985The court, however, ruled that the going and coming rule did "not apply if the approved consumption of alcohol on the employer's premises proximately caused the accident." Id. 117 Cal. Rptr. at 66 , 527 P.2d at 618 . *61 The court summarized its analysis by stating that "if the proximate cause is of industrial origin, the time and place of injury or death even if foreign to the premises does not serve to nullify recovery." Id. 117 Cal. Rptr. at 67 , 527 P.2d at 619 . 1985The court, however, ruled that the going and coming rule did "not apply if the approved consumption of alcohol on the employer's premises proximately caused the accident." Id. 117 Cal. Rptr. at 66 , 527 P.2d at 618 . *61 The court summarized its analysis by stating that "if the proximate cause is of industrial origin, the time and place of injury or death even if foreign to the premises does not serve to nullify recovery." Id. 117 Cal. Rptr. at 67 , 527 P.2d at 619 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.