Stoskin v. Bd. of Educ. Mont. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• “There is no evidence showing any agreement, either express or implied, between [employee] and her employer that [employee] was undertaking, outside of her regular place of employment, a special assignment for her employer’s benefit[.]” (emphasis added)
• employee who reviewed work materials at home and was injured the next morning on a public street upon arriving at her place of work could not rely on the work done at home to recover under the dual-purpose exception to the going and coming rule
• employee who reviewed work materials at home and was injured the next morning on a public street upon arriving at her place of work could not rely on the work done at home to recover under the dual-purpose exception to the going and coming rule

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).