Copeland v. Leaf, Inc.
Tennessee Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DROWOTA, Justice.
We have been asked to interpret our recent decision in Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 767 S.W.2d 143 (Tenn.1989), as it applies to the facts of this case, in order to determine whether Plaintiff’s injuries are compensable. To be compensable under our workers’ compensation statute, an injury must be one “arising out of and in the course of employment.” T.C.A. § 50-6-102(a)(5) (1991). In Lollar we evaluated *141a substantial body of case law and reexamined our holding in Woods v. Warren, 548 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn.1977), regarding the principles governing workers’ compensation…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Epler v. North American Rockwell Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Barnett v. Britling Cafeteria Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1932
- Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1989
- Proctor-Silex Corp. v. DeBrickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
- Adair v. Metropolitan Building CoMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- McCurry v. Container Corp. of AmericaTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
- Howard v. Cornerstone Medical Associates, P.C.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2001
- Wentworth v. Sparks Regional Medical CenterCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1995
- Municipality of Anchorage v. RobertsonAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
- Davaut v. University of South CarolinaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.