Ruddick v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• proclaiming that the Act’s exclusivity provision “manifests a legislative policy decision that a limitation on remedies under tort law is an appropriate trade-off for the benefits provided by workers’ compensation”
• applying principles set forth in Biasetti but concluding that plaintiffs mental impairment was caused by her physical injuries and therefore covered by act
• act is remedial statute that should be construed generously to accomplish its purpose of quick and certain compensation of injured employees
• ‘‘it is improper to raise a new argument in a reply brief, because doing so deprives the opposing party of the opportunity to respond in writing’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).