Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. Maytag-Pacific-Intermountain Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 1935No. 25843. Department TwoPublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeals, J.

The defendant Maytag-Pacific-Inter-mountain Co., a corporation (hereinafter referred to as Maytag or respondent), is engaged in business as a vendor of washing machines and other mechanical appliances; and for some years prior to July, 1933, de fendant J. W. Grosso had been in its employ, as district manager np to May 1, 1933, and thereafter as a salesman. C. M. Jett succeeded Mr. Grosso as branch manager for a district in the north central part of this state, with headquarters at Omak, Grosso being one of the salesmen under his jurisdiction.

Mr. Grosso was assigned to a territory rather…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State v. PsarasWashington Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Nettleship v. ShipmanWashington Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Buckley v. HarkensWashington Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Bell v. Northwest Cities Gas Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Seattle Lighting Co. v. HawleyWashington Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. American National Insurance v. DenkeTexas Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Hayward v. YostIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Meredith Publishing Co. v. Iowa Employment Security CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1942
  4. Modern Motors, Inc. v. ElkinsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941
  5. Seattle Aerie No. 1 of Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Commissioner of Unemployment Compensation & PlacementWashington Supreme Court · 1945

9 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