Precision Excavating
4 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2012–2018)
5 trusted published court opinions across 4 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Precision Excavating as an employer in 4 distinct federal employment cases between 2012 and 2018.
Of the 5 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 4 ended in a ruling for the employer and 1 were sent back to a lower court.
The most common claims on record were Workers Compensation and Wrongful Termination.
Cases were filed across 1 state (UT).
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 4 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Precision Excavating appears in 5 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co. (Slip Opinion) (2018) — Defendant Win. An injured worker named Klein received workers' compensation benefits for temporary total disability after getting hurt at Precision Excavating & Grading Co. While still disabled from his workplace injury, Klein voluntarily quit his job for reasons unrelated to his injury. Read the ruling.
Jex v. Utah Labor Commission (2013) — Defendant Win. A worker named Jex was injured while driving home from his job at Precision Excavating. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, claiming his injury should be covered because it happened during work-related travel. Read the ruling.
Jex v. Labor Commission (2012) — Defendant Win. This case involved a dispute between a worker named Jex and Utah's Labor Commission, the state agency that handles workplace issues and complaints. While the specific details of Jex's original complaint aren't provided, it appears the worker was unhappy with how the Labor Commission handled their case. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Workers’ Compensation (2 of 5), Wrongful Termination. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Workers’ Compensation and Wrongful Termination.
Published opinions span Utah. Utah is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Utah rulings.
Opinion Outcomes
Claim Types
States
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other employers with published opinions
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.