Murphy v. Jewell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statute requiring workers’ compensation carrier to release all information concerning the employee’s physical or mental condition does not affect the work product doctrine
• holding that statute requiring workers’ compensation carrier to release all information concerning the employee’s physical or mental condition does not affect the work product doctrine
• holding “we read statutes as a whole rather than looking at words and phrases in isolation”
• noting “[t]he legislature has granted agencies multifaceted authority,” which they exercise “when deciding contested cases; and . . . when they promulgate rules and rule on petitions for declaratory orders”
• giving a narrow interpretation to the broad phrase “all information” based on context
• giving a harrow interpretation to the broad phrase “all information” based on context

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).