Cross v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF INDUS. COM'N

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that carpooling a very long distance to work did not warrant granting an exception to the “going and coming” rule for the purpose of awarding workers’ compensation because it was not employer directed
• holding that arrival at work not substantial benefit
• stating that the carrying of work implements not necessary for the job was not enough to qualify the employee for an exception to the going and coming rule
• declining to characterize the employee's vehicle as an instrumentality because the employee was neither compensated for his travel time nor required to report to a meeting spot to ride with his foreman or to carry work implements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).