Legal Opinion

Jacobson v. Strong & Waggoner

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1939No. File No. 8175PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

there so we could get hol-di of him when anything occurred. Of course there was nothing in his contract that stated that he had to sleep there. We wanted him available when we wanted to get hold of him.

“It was optional wherever he wanted to sleep. O'f course we wanted him there but of course we couldn’t necessarily hold him. He could have slept at one of the farm houses there. It was customary, you know, for the help to stay there. It was really optional with him. He could have slept at some of the neighbors. It was also optional with Groves. Naturally Giroves would not go to some place else…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Griffith v. Cole Bros.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1917
  2. Meyers v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Holt Lumber Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Meyer v. RoetteleSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Larson v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Nilson v. Clay CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Phillips v. John Morrell & Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Bearshield v. City of GregorySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Krier v. Dick's Linoleum ShopSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Canal Insurance Co. v. AbrahamSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999

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