Collins v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 1053-94-1
| Decision Date | 25 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 1053-94-1,1053-94-1 |
| Citation | 22 Va.App. 625,472 S.E.2d 287 |
| Parties | Donald F. COLLINS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, et al., Appellees. Record |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Karen M. Rye, Norfolk, for appellant.
W. Mark Dunn, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; Gregory E. Lucyk, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellees.
Before MOON, C.J., and BAKER, BENTON, COLEMAN, WILLIS, ELDER, BRAY, FITZPATRICK and OVERTON, JJ.
Upon a Rehearing En Banc
In Collins v. Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 21 Va.App. 671, 467 S.E.2d 279 (1996), a majority of a panel of the Court affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commission. Collins' petition for rehearing en banc was granted and heard on June 10, 1996. For the reasons stated in the panel's majority opinion, we affirm the decision of the commission, and the stay of this Court's February 20, 1996 mandate is lifted.
Judge Elder concurs in the result based on imposition only. Judges Benton and Fitzpatrick would reverse the decision of the commission for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of the original panel decision. See id. at 681-87, 467 S.E.2d at 284-87 (Benton, J., dissenting).
This order shall be published and certified to the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tiger Fibers, LLC v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 1:07cv1106 (AJT/TCB).
...See, e.g., Collins v. Dep't of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 21 Va. App. 671, 681, 467 S.E.2d 279, 283, aff'd on reh'g en banc, 22 Va. App. 625, 472 S.E.2d 287 (1996). This doctrine, like the doctrine of scrivener's error, undermines the integrity and certainty of contracts; and a court will ......
-
American Zurich Insurance Company v. Martinez, Record No. 0498-07-4 (Va. App. 1/8/2008)
...mistake." Collins v. Dep't of Alcoholic Bev. Con., 21 Va. App. 671, 679-80, 467 S.E.2d 279, 283, aff'd on rehearing en banc, 22 Va. App. 625, 472 S.E.2d 287 (1996). Virginia's case law further clarifies that the commission has the "implied power, incidental to those granted, to entertain an......
-
BAY CONCRETE CONST. CO., INC. v. Davis
...S.E.2d 279, 282 (quoting Harris v. Diamond Constr. Co., 184 Va. 711, 720, 36 S.E.2d 573, 577 (1946)), aff'd on reh'g en banc, 22 Va.App. 625, 472 S.E.2d 287 (1996). Nevertheless, we are aware of "no authority ... that permits the commission to use the imposition doctrine to override the cle......
-
Watts v. P. & J HAULING, INC.
...mutual or unilateral. Collins v. Dep't of Alcoholic Bev. Control, 21 Va.App. 671, 680, 467 S.E.2d 279, 283, affd en banc, 22 Va.App. 625, 472 S.E.2d 287 (1996). Claimant contends that the evidence supports a finding of a de facto award because the parties stipulated that there was a compens......