Heard v. Mitchell's Formal Wear, 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 the co-employee’s actions “were directed at Heard because of a work-related activity, occurring during working hours and arising from the performance of both Heard’s and [the co-employee’s] duties”
• store employee assaulted by a coworker could not sue store for negligence under the Act’s exclusive remedy provision because the coworker’s animosity “arose from reasons related to the employee’s performance of her work-related duties”
• employee of formal wear shop assaulted during work-related argument
• co-worker shoved another in the shoulder

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).