Groves v. Marvel
Supreme Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
HERRMANN, Justice.
This appeal requires interpretation of the co-employee immunity-from-suit provision of the Delaware Workmen’s Compensation Law.
The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are these: The plaintiff and the defendant were both employed by Automotive Importers, Inc. (hereinafter “Automotive”) which engaged in the business of automobile sales and service. The plaintiff was service manager, with the primary duty of diagnosing customers’ service needs and assigning the work; the defendant was an automobile salesman. On a Saturday, at about 12:30 P.M., as the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Children's Bureau v. NissenSuperior Court of Delaware · 1942
- Sergeant v. KennedyMichigan Supreme Court · 1958
- Konitch v. HartungNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1963
- Helmic v. PaineMichigan Supreme Court · 1963
- D'Agostino v. WagenaarNew York Supreme Court · 1944
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hauch v. ConnorCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1983
- APPLE v. ReichertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Smith v. EllisSupreme Court of Georgia · 2012
- Lloyd v. JeffersonDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1999
- Bishop v. TwifordCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.