Eddington v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
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
- Thompson v. TwissSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
- Pfister v. Doon Electric Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1925
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. HickmanCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1918
3Cited by28 opinions
- Johnson v. Asheville Hosiery Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Mobile Liners, Inc. v. McConnellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Flynn v. CarsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
- Tunnicliff v. BettendorfSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
- McFall v. Barton-Mansfield Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1933
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.