Legal Opinion

Wright v. Phœnix Utility Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 22, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBbogdeN, J.

It is to be observed that tbe plaintiff was not engaged in constructing tunnels, but that bis sole duty was to open sacks of cement. Necessarily cement dust would arise from sucb an operation.

Practically every phase of tbe law of removal bas been discussed by tbis Court in a long line of opinions;, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to “thresh over old straw.”

Tbe simple question is whether tbe record, in tbe case at bar, falls within tbe principles of law announced in Crisp v. Fibre Co., 193 N. C., 77, 136 S. E., 238, and Givens v. Mfg. Co., 196 N. C., 377, 145 S. E., 681, or within tbe…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Crisp v. Champion Fibre Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  2. Rea v. Standard Mirror Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  3. Givens v. Savona Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  4. Cox v. Whitmer-Parsons Pulp & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  5. Johnson v. Blackwood Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Brown v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  2. Stubbs v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  3. Caporale v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
  4. Caporale v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
  5. Overton v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API