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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2000 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 |
|---|---|---|
Caygill v. Jablonskigreen2 sentences2000See, also, Annotation, Right to Maintain Direct Action Against Fellow Employee for Injury or Death Covered by Workmen’s Compensation (1968), 21 A.L.R.3d 845 , 1968 WL 15836 . {¶ 8} In Caygill v. Jablonski (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 807, 818 , 605 N.E.2d 1352, 1359 , the authority upon which Donnelly primarily relies, the court of appeals held that a coemployee is not immune from tort liability under R.C. 4123.741, where, at the time of injury, the coemployee was engaged in horseplay disconnected from his employment. 2000See, also, Annotation, Right to Maintain Direct Action Against Fellow Employee for Injury or Death Covered by Workmen’s Compensation (1968), 21 A.L.R.3d 845 , 1968 WL 15836 . {¶ 8} In Caygill v. Jablonski (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 807, 818 , 605 N.E.2d 1352, 1359 , the authority upon which Donnelly primarily relies, the court of appeals held that a coemployee is not immune from tort liability under R.C. 4123.741, where, at the time of injury, the coemployee was engaged in horseplay disconnected from his employment. | 1 | 1 |
MTD Products, Inc. v. Robatingreen2 sentences1995See Robatin, supra, 61 Ohio St.3d at 69-70 , 572 N.E.2d at 664-665 . 1995See Robatin, supra, 61 Ohio St.3d at 69-70 , 572 N.E.2d at 664-665 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Industrial Commission v. Heil
green
2 sentences1998Comm. v. Heil (1931), 123 Ohio St. 604 , 176 N.E. 458 , the court held the going-and-coming rule applicable to a plant superintendent who “had no duties to perform for the company at any place other than at the abattoir plant.” (Emphasis added.) Id., 123 Ohio St. at 604 , 176 N.E. at 459 . 1998Comm. v. Heil (1931), 123 Ohio St. 604 , 176 N.E. 458 , the court held the going-and-coming rule applicable to a plant superintendent who “had no duties to perform for the company at any place other than at the abattoir plant.” (Emphasis added.) Id., 123 Ohio St. at 604 , 176 N.E. at 459 . | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Industrial Commission v. Gintert
green
2 sentences1998Comm. v. Gintert (1934), 128 Ohio St. 129 , 190 N.E. 400 , the court held the going-and-coming rule applicable to a school teacher whose sole place of employment was a particular school building. 1998Comm. v. Gintert (1934), 128 Ohio St. 129 , 190 N.E. 400 , the court held the going-and-coming rule applicable to a school teacher whose sole place of employment was a particular school building. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Askew v. City of Akron
neutral
2 sentences1991Moreover, while there is some broad language in a Summit County Common Pleas Court case supporting appellant, see Askew v. Akron (1969), 17 Ohio Misc. 129 , 46 O.O.2d 176 , 244 N.E.2d 805 , we are bound by the Supreme Court of Ohio and we cannot overrule their past cases. 1991Moreover, while there is some broad language in a Summit County Common Pleas Court case supporting appellant, see Askew v. Akron (1969), 17 Ohio Misc. 129 , 46 O.O.2d 176 , 244 N.E.2d 805 , we are bound by the Supreme Court of Ohio and we cannot overrule their past cases. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Littlefield v. Pillsbury Co.
green
2 sentences1991Appellant’s second argument is based upon the special hazard exception to the going-and-coming rule, as formulated in Littlefield v. Pillsbury Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 389 , 6 OBR 439, 453 N.E.2d 570 . 1991Appellant’s second argument is based upon the special hazard exception to the going-and-coming rule, as formulated in Littlefield v. Pillsbury Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 389 , 6 OBR 439, 453 N.E.2d 570 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hammond v. the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
green
2 sentences1983The going and coming rule has been criticized as having “produced many harsh results which led courts to carve out numerous exceptions to it.” Hammond v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (1970), 56 N.J. 7, 11 , 264 A. 2d 204 . 1983The going and coming rule has been criticized as having “produced many harsh results which led courts to carve out numerous exceptions to it.” Hammond v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (1970), 56 N.J. 7, 11 , 264 A. 2d 204 . | 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.