Legal Opinion

Piukkula v. Pillsbury Astoria Flouring Mills Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 1935PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

Omitting mention of formal matters, the complaint (amended) alleges that the defendant conducts a flour manufacturing business in a building equipped with power-driven machinery. The sacked flour moves down a chute from the manufacturing room to the storage room where it is trucked by workmen to other places. These operations create flour dust “and the air in and about defendant’s said enclosed workrooms is heavily charged and impregnated therewith which, if permitted to enter the respiratory organs of its employees worMng therein, and inhaled by them into their lungs is, if continued for any…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Michigan Central Railroad v. VreelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. CraftSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  3. Reading Co. v. KoonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  4. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. CarrollSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  5. Harrison v. Remington Paper Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
  2. Russell v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Gramlich v. Travelers Insurance Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Mason v. Gerin Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1982
  5. Vaughn v. LangmackOregon Supreme Court · 1964

18 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