12/17/2020
repairing a section of road on Route N in Pike County. Claimant parked his truck approximately two hundred feet from where his crew was working. Claimant was driving a truck hauling asphalt amalgam. The two-hundred feet of road was paved and flat. After being informed that the crew was running out of
Category: Cases
12/17/2020
Douglass v Pike Co 101 US 11 Otto 677 687; 11 Otto 677; 25 L Ed 968 1880. Significantly the United States Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed its use
The claim to adhere to case law is generally powerful once a decision has settled statutory meaning see Patterson v. McLean Credit
Category: Cases
12/17/2020
shoulders. On January 4 2000 the plaintiff was participating in a response to a fire in Elmhurst when he felt pain in both shoulders as he struggled to control a highly pressurized 2-inch water hose. Later while fighting the same fire he felt a sharp dagger-like pain in his shoulders as he used a " pike
Category: Cases
12/17/2020
.
fn8 Pike Creek Chiropractic Ctr. P.A. v. Robinson 637 A.2d 418 420 Del. 1994.
fn9 432 A.2d 1207 1210 Del. 1981.
fn10 19 Del. C. § 1103b provides
If an employer without any reasonable grounds for dispute fails to pay an employee wages as required under this chapter
Category: Cases
12/17/2020
cases. See e.g. Ex parte Pike County Commission 740 So. 2d 1080 1084 Ala. 1999; Parris-Eastlake v. State 26 P.3d 1099 1105 and n.21 Alaska 2001; Lou Grubb Chevrolet Inc. v. Industrial Commission 174 Ariz. 23 26 846 P.2d 836 App. 1992; Preway Inc. v. Davis 22 Ark. App. 132 134--35 736
Category: Cases
12/17/2020
subdivision c5 excluding from covered claims a claim by an insurer for "contribution indemnity or subrogation equitable or otherwise."
In Burrow v. Pike 1987 190 Cal.App.3d 384 the court held that no language in the statutes governing CIGA's liability precluded a workers' compensation carrier's
Category: Cases
12/17/2020
employee "may never make a claim based on the restored benefits."
-FN 6. The Board also relied on Burrow v. Pike 1987 190 Cal.App.3d 384 and the parties argue whether we should rely on California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Argonaut Ins. Co. supra 27 Cal.App.4th 624 which disagreed with Burrow. We
Category: Cases
12/17/2020
Under CIGA Provisions
1 Nutrilite's contention
Nutrilite claims that the trial court in interpreting Insurance Code section 1063.1 subdivision c incorrectly applied California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Argonaut Ins. Co. 1991 227 Cal.App.3d 624 rather than Burrow v. Pike 1987 190 Cal.App
Category: Cases
12/17/2020
for compensation benefits that an obligation to the State is not a statutorily-defined covered claim that the State cannot protect an applicant who has knowingly waived EDD reimbursement rights that Burrow v. Pike 1987 190 Cal.App.3d 384 does not apply that the State as a governmental insurer
Category: Cases
12/17/2020
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III
No. CA05-485
November 16 2005
PEGGY JACKSON APPELLANT
v.
PIKE COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES APPELLEES
AN APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION F308900. AFFIRMED.
The
Category: Cases