Limanowski v. Ashland Oil Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an employee must show by preponderance of the evidence that the employer specifically intended to injure the plaintiff
• holding that the employee must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer specifically intended to injury the plaintiff
• rejecting substantial certainty standard on ground that “specific intent to injure” is more consistent with purposes of workers’ compensation statute
• failure to raise objection during post-trial proceedings results in forfeiture of the issue on appeal
• employee seeking to recover against employer must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employer specifically intended to injure the plaintiff

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).