Havard v. Perdue Farms, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that where the plaintiff received workers compensation benefits in Delaware and he and his general employer were citizens of Delaware, Delaware “ha[d] no interest in this case”
• discussing Hutzell v. Boyer, 252 Md. 227, 249 A.2d 449 (1969), in which Maryland law applied to a Virginia workmen’s compensation dispute because both parties were Maryland residents returning to their Maryland homes
• construing the motion as one brought under Rule 56

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).