Bagcraft Corp. v. Industrial Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that without “specific language directing application” of a statutory provision to a scenario governed by the common law, “we cannot conclude that the legislature intended to abrogate an entire body of case law”
• holding that without “specific language directing application” of a statutory provision to a scenario governed by the common law, “we cannot conclude that the legislature intended to abrogate an entire body of case law”
• awarding benefits to an employee on a business trip who was killed while riding an ATV
• applying rule covering SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 1947A 7 employees under workers compensation throughout their work trips for all reasonable and foreseeable activities
• awarding benefits where employee died while engaging in a recreational activity while traveling
• “[t]he judiciary will not interpret a statute in a manner that will abrogate the common law unless such intent is clearly gleaned from the language of the statute”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).