Leo v. Cornucopia Restaurant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding 1993 amendment corrected a mistake in the earlier version of the statute and should be substituted for the earlier version in determining legislative intent
• determining that the legislature intended the statutory formula in Sections 52-1-26 to -26.4 be applied in light of the precedent established by Reynolds
• determining that the legislature intended the statutory formula in Sections 52-1-26 to -26.4 be applied in light of the precedent established by Reynolds
• discussing that language that was left intact during the frequent revisions of 15 the statute evinces a legislative intent to retain the meaning of this statute as 16 explicated in our case law
• “In both cases, this Court held that the Workers’ Compensation Act does not allow an award of compensation benefits based on later injuries or illnesses that are wholly unrelated to either the employment or the original compensable injury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).