6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 23 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Seabright Insurance Company v. Maximina Lopez, Beneficiary of Candelario Lopez.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Seabright Insurance Company v. Maximina Lopez, Beneficiary of Candelario Lopez Anchor | green | “courts have generally employed a fact-intensive analysis to determine whether an employee's travel originated in the employer's business, focusing on the nature of the employee's job, the circumstances of the travel, and any other relevant facts.” | 6 |
| 2 | Zurich American Insurance Co. v. McVey | green | “no singular fact is necessarily dispositive.” | 5 |
| 3 | Combined Specialty Insurance Co. v. Deese | green | “a party's failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided under texas's workers' compensation scheme deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over that party's request for judicial review.” | 3 |
| 4 | Frank v. Liberty Insurance Corp. | green | “must be construed liberally to achieve its purposes of compensating injured workers.” | 3 |
| 5 | Zurich American Insurance Co. v. McVey | green | “evidence that an employee was on a 'special mission' for his employer is . . . probative of whether an employee's trip originated in his employer's business.” | 3 |
| 6 | Seabright Insurance Company v. Maximina Lopez, Beneficiary of Candelario Lopez | green | “the relationship between the travel and the employment is so close that it can fairly be said that the injury had to do with and originated in the work, business, trade or profession of the employer.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.