Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rudy v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 1950No. 31953Published

1Dissent

For the purpose of this dissenting opinion, a more detailed statement of the facts than is contained in the majority opinion becomes necessary.

Ruddy, the claimant and the appellee herein, was a long-time employee of the Electrolux Corporation, at Youngstown, which concern was a contributor to the state insurance fund. He was an electric sweeper salesman and serviceman with no fixed situs ofemployment and with no regular hours of work. He secured his customers wherever and whenever he could find them — on the streets, in their places of business and in their homes.

The claimant, 31 years old…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Loper v. MorrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Ritchie v. WallerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
  3. California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Beem v. H. D. Lee Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
  5. Industrial Commission v. HenryOhio Supreme Court · 1932

7 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