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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 7 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 Carper v. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Carper v. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner Anchor | green | “no definite rule can be laid down as to what is the zone of employment, and each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances.” | 4 |
| 2 | Harris v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner | green | “when an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual going and coming rule, the journey may be brought within the course of employment by the fact that the trouble and tim…” | 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.