Legal Opinion

Ruckman v. Cubby Drilling, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1998No. Nos. 96-1788, 96-1790 and 96-1791PublishedCited by 96 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.

This case presents the court with two distinct yet interrelated issues: (1) whether the Cubby employees were fixed-situs employees within the meaning of the coming-and-going rule despite the temporary nature of their work assignments and, if they were, (2) whether the employees nevertheless overcame the presumption embodied in the coming-and-going rule by specifically demonstrating that their injuries occurred “in the course of’ and “arose out of’ the employment. We hold that the Cubby employees were fixed-situs employees within the meaning of the coming-and-going rule, but nevertheless…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Fisher v. MayfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Lord v. DaughertyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Bralley v. DaughertyOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. WellsOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  5. MTD Products, Inc. v. RobatinOhio Supreme Court · 1991

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by96 opinions

  1. Theobald v. University of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Bennett v. Admr., Ohio Bureau of Workers' CompensationOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing AuthorityOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
  4. Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid-Ohio (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Freeman v. BrooksOhio Court of Appeals · 2003

91 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API