Legal Opinion

Rutland v. P. H. Ruebel Company

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 13, 1941No. 4-6237PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtG-reenhaw, J.

The appellee in this case, a corporation, was engaged in the undertaking business in the city of Little Rock, its sole stockholders, officers, and directors being Alfred Leymer, his wife and his sister-in-law, Miss Ruebel. Leymer was secretary-treasurer and manager. The appellant was employed as an embalmer fox-appellant by Mr. Leymer iix 1925. At that time another employee, Carl Yess, was assistaxxt manager. Ixx 1928 the said Cax-1 Vess became totally disabled due to illxxess, which terminated his services for appellee. Thereupon the duties of Vess were delegated to the appellant.

The…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Minnis v. FriendIllinois Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Illinois Central Railroad v. O'KeefeIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Pienta v. Chicago City Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Carpenter v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
  5. Hogue v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Harlan v. CurboSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971
  2. Wright v. CoveySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961
  3. Baxter v. Grobmyer Bros.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
  4. Weatherford v. WommackSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
  5. Waganer v. Travelers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1980

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API