Legal Opinion

Wilson v. Steel Tank & Pipe Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 10, 1935PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

It is conceded that the defendant Dierking was an officer and agent of the appellant corporation. The question for determination is whether the testimony warranted the jury in finding that at the time of the accident he was acting for and on behalf of his employer, the Steel Tank & Pipe Company, in furtherance of its business and within the scope of his employment.

The testimony on behalf of appellant differs from that of plaintiff upon some material points, but, where persons of reasonable minds might draw different inferences from conflicting evidence introduced to establish a fact in…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Khoury v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  2. Slater v. Advance Thresher Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  3. May v. FarrellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. Gill v. SellingOregon Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Pyyny v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Gossett v. SimonsonOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Heide v. TCI INCORPORATEDOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  3. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. RobertsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1976
  4. Larkins v. Utah Copper Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Hantke v. Harris Ice Machine WorksOregon Supreme Court · 1936

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