Bois v. Blizzard

How courts have described this case

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

• “We note that most of the cases analyzing Code § 65.2-101 have discussed the term “regularly in service” in relation to the number of employees necessary for coverage because that was the factual basis for disputing coverage.” (emphasis added)
• \We note that most of the cases analyzing Code § 65.2-101 have discussed the term \regularly in service\ in relation to the number of employees necessary for coverage because that was the factual basis for disputing coverage.\ (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).