Legal Opinion

Eddington v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided February 20, 1925PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Evans, J.-

The only question presented on this appeal is whether the plaintiff’s employment came within the purview of our Compensation Act. If yea, then the plaintiff was confined to his remedy thereunder. If nay, then the plaintiff was entitled to pursue his eommon-laiv remedy for damages. The defendant contends for the affirmative on this question; and the plaintiff, for the negative.

Concededly, the employment was within the purview of the Compensation Act unless it was covered by the specific excep tions thereto. The plaintiff contends that his employment was purely “casual,” and therefore…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Thompson v. TwissSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
  2. Pfister v. Doon Electric Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1925
  3. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. HickmanCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1918

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Asheville Hosiery Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  2. Mobile Liners, Inc. v. McConnellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  3. Flynn v. CarsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Tunnicliff v. BettendorfSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
  5. McFall v. Barton-Mansfield Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1933

23 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