Legal Opinion

Hendrix v. Ray-Ser Dyeing Company

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided December 11, 1970PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Chattin

James R. Hendrix, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, has appealed to this Court from an adverse judgment of the trial court denying workmen’s compensation benefits.

Ray-Ser Dyeing Company, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was engaged in the business of dyeing and processing man-made fibers, threads and yam.

In carrying out its business, it was necessary to maintain a boiler to generate steam to heat the dye base and to furnish heat for the dryer and the building in which the business was performed.

There was a smoke stack through which smoke from the steam furnace was emitted atop the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Odom v. Sanford & TreadwayTennessee Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Armstrong v. SpearsTennessee Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Siskin v. JohnsonTennessee Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Butler v. JohnsonTennessee Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Smith v. Lincoln Memorial UniversityTennessee Supreme Court · 1957

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Stratton v. United Inter-Mountain Telephone Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Murray v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Barber v. Ralston PurinaCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1991
  4. Carpenter v. Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1977
  5. Brown v. Canterbury Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1992

6 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