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 6 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 McGee v. Van Erden.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | McGee v. Van Erden Anchor | green | “where, as here, there is an issue of fact whether an injured plaintiff is an employee within the meaning of the workers' compensation law, he or she 'may not choose the courts as the forum for the resolution' of that issue” | 3 |
| 2 | Gullo v. Bellhaven Center for Geriatric & Rehabilitative Care, Inc. | green | “should not have entertained defendant's motion at this juncture, and the case should have been referred to the board for a determination” | 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.