Eureka Oil Company v. Mooney
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the CourtKirby, J.
This is the second appeal of this case, a statement of which can be found in the report of opinion on first appeal in 168 Ark. 479, 271 S. W. 321, which is the law of the case, of course, and will control here, the facts on this trial being substantially the same as on the former appeal. Wisconsin-Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Scott, 153 Ark. 65, 239 S. W. 391; Henry Wrape Co. v. Barrentine, 138 Ark. 267, 211 S. W. 366.
The court, in reversing the fiase, relative to an erroneous instruction on■ assumed risk, said: “It is true deceased had only been employed one day, but the danger from the work —…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railroad v. StroudSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. ScottSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Redman v. HudsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Henry Wrape Co. v. BarrentineSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Eureka Oil Company v. MooneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
3Cited by6 opinions
- Maxwell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. McAdooSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Garrett v. TrimuneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1973
- Newsom v. ReedSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Fair Oaks Stave Co. v. CrossSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.