permissible standard (Delaware) · Go Syfert
← Delaware issues

permissible standard in Delaware

5 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1907–1997 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Delaware 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
June Hannah v. Bill Haskins, D/B/A Cloverleaf Fertilizer Company and Dwayne Elvin Bentley, Kirk National Leasing Co., Incgreen
ca8 · 1980 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
1 sentence

1990Accord Hannah v. Haskins, 612 F.2d 373, 375 (8th Cir.1980) ("The scope of the permissible inquiry is thus set by the direct examination and the usual rules on cross-examination apply.”); Sheehy v. Southern Pac.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Moore v. State green
del · 1983
1 sentence

1997The Supreme Court of Delaware did limit the permissible factors that may be considered in Moore v. State, 456 A.2d at 1224 .

11997–1997
Nutt v. A.C. & S., Inc. green
delsuperct · 1983
1 sentence

1987The Supreme Court recognized manifestation of disease as a permissible standard in the field of workmen’s compensation in Alloy and this Court applied that concept in Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., Inc., Del.Super., 466 A.2d 18 (1983), aff'd. sub nom Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of America, Del.Supr., 480 A.2d 647 (1984).

11987–1987
Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of America green
del · 1984
1 sentence

1987The Supreme Court recognized manifestation of disease as a permissible standard in the field of workmen’s compensation in Alloy and this Court applied that concept in Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., Inc., Del.Super., 466 A.2d 18 (1983), aff'd. sub nom Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of America, Del.Supr., 480 A.2d 647 (1984).

11987–1987
Gordy v. Preform Building Components, Inc. green
delsuperct · 1973
1 sentence

1984Thus, setoff was not permitted whether by the statute or by the decisional law relating to sci. fa. actions based upon the record. 310 A.2d at 896 .

11984–1984
Bowles v. Indiana Railway Co. neutral
indctapp · 1901
1 sentence

1907Co., 62 N. E. 94 , are cases in which the injuries complained of were received before or after working hours when the employee was being conveyed to or from his work by the employer, and it was held in each case that this was a permissible privilege allowed by the defendant to the complainant in his capacity as servant.

11907–1907

Where else courts name it

TX 38 (1982–2026) PA 23 (1947–2026) NY 22 (1904–2025) CA 19 (1962–2024) NJ 17 (1925–2026) MI 14 (1968–2026) WA 13 (1980–2025) IL 11 (1976–2022) IA 11 (1942–2020) GA 10 (1965–2013) WY 10 (1996–2026) OR 10 (1964–2025) MA 10 (1936–2025) FL 9 (1980–2024) MO 8 (1966–2025) OH 6 (1994–2025) TN 6 (1980–2016) AZ 6 (1988–2022) NM 6 (1968–2017) AL 6 (1926–2016) DC 6 (1984–2024) MD 5 (1961–2021) OK 5 (1936–2010) DE 5 (1907–1997) MS 4 (1986–2014) MT 4 (1986–2000) KS 4 (2006–2024) NC 4 (2014–2025) WI 4 (1976–2018) WV 4 (1964–2013) ND 3 (1989–2012) MN 3 (1938–2025) AR 2 (1972–1995) AK 2 (1971–1985) VT 2 (2010–2014) IN 2 (1990–1993)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check