5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1937–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fitzgerald v. Globe-Union, Inc.green2 sentences2007Comm’n, 388 A.2d 516, 519 (Me.1978) (“denial of benefits based on misconduct should be determined not by the employer’s rules, but rather by the provisions of the statute”); Fitzgerald v. Globe-Union, Inc., 35 Wis.2d 332 , 151 N.W.2d 136, 140 (1967) (“While the violation of a work rule may well justify the discharge of an employee, such a violation does not necessarily amount to misconduct for unemployment compensation purposes.”). 2007Comm’n, 388 A.2d 516, 519 (Me.1978) (“denial of benefits based on misconduct should be determined not by the employer’s rules, but rather by the provisions of the statute”); Fitzgerald v. Globe-Union, Inc., 35 Wis.2d 332 , 151 N.W.2d 136, 140 (1967) (“While the violation of a work rule may well justify the discharge of an employee, such a violation does not necessarily amount to misconduct for unemployment compensation purposes.”). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Maine Department of Manpower Affairs, Employment Security Commissiongreen2 sentences2007Comm’n, 388 A.2d 516, 519 (Me.1978) (“denial of benefits based on misconduct should be determined not by the employer’s rules, but rather by the provisions of the statute”); Fitzgerald v. Globe-Union, Inc., 35 Wis.2d 332 , 151 N.W.2d 136, 140 (1967) (“While the violation of a work rule may well justify the discharge of an employee, such a violation does not necessarily amount to misconduct for unemployment compensation purposes.”). 2007Comm'n, 388 A.2d 516, 519 (Me.1978) ("denial of benefits based on misconduct should be determined not by the employer's rules, but rather by the provisions of the statute"); Fitzgerald v. Globe-Union, Inc., 35 Wis.2d 332 , 151 N.W.2d 136, 140 (1967) ("While the violation of a work rule may well justify the discharge of an employee, such a violation does not necessarily amount to misconduct for unemployment compensation purposes."). | 1 | 1 |
New York State Electric & Gas Corporation v. Secretary of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commissiongreen1 sentence1999To prevail on an isolated incident defense, the “employer must demonstrate that it (1) established a work rule to prevent the reckless behavior and/or unsafe condition from occurring, (2) adequately communicated the rule to its employees, (3) took steps to discover incidents of noncompliance, and (4) effectively enforced the rule whenever employees transgressed it.” P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc., 115 F.3d at 109 ; see also New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 88 F.3d at 106 ; Austin Bldg. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lembke v. Fritz
green
2 sentences1943The relationship may be either express or implied.” In the case of Lembke v. Fritz, 223 Iowa 261, 266 , 272 N. W. 300, 303 , we reviewed a number of our decisions, and stated: “All the cases agree that the test of the relationship of master and servant is not the actual exercise of power of control over the details and methods to be followed in the performance of the work but the test is the right to exercise such control Applying such rules to the evidence herein, the jury was warranted in finding that the status of master and servant existed. 1943The relationship may be either express or implied.” In the case of Lembke v. Fritz, 223 Iowa 261, 266 , 272 N. W. 300, 303 , we reviewed a number of our decisions, and stated: “All the cases agree that the test of the relationship of master and servant is not the actual exercise of power of control over the details and methods to be followed in the performance of the work but the test is the right to exercise such control Applying such rules to the evidence herein, the jury was warranted in finding that the status of master and servant existed. | 2 | 1940–1943 |
P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission
green
1 sentence1999To prevail on an isolated incident defense, the “employer must demonstrate that it (1) established a work rule to prevent the reckless behavior and/or unsafe condition from occurring, (2) adequately communicated the rule to its employees, (3) took steps to discover incidents of noncompliance, and (4) effectively enforced the rule whenever employees transgressed it.” P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc., 115 F.3d at 109 ; see also New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 88 F.3d at 106 ; Austin Bldg. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
cluster 390062
green
1 sentence1999Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 647 F.2d 1063 , 1069 (10th Cir.1981) (failure of employer’s safety program to effectively communicate the need for guarding against risks associated with welding on platform without guardrail or safety belt provided a substantial basis for rejecting isolated occurrence defense). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Mallinger v. Webster City Oil Co.
green
2 sentences1937In the case of Mallinger v. Webster City Oil Co., 211 Iowa 847 , 234 N. W. 254, 259 , the facts are strikingly similar to the facts in this case. 1937In the case of Mallinger v. Webster City Oil Co., 211 Iowa 847 , 234 N. W. 254, 259 , the facts are strikingly similar to the facts in this case. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
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.