Legal Opinion

Hance v. Johnson, Stephens & Shinkle Shoe Company

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided October 23, 1957No. 7642PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STONE, Judge.

In this proceeding for benefits under the Missouri Workmen’s Compensation Law [Chapter 287], Earnie Hance, self-described as a “very goosy” individual, asserted that, while drinking at a fountain in the Rolla plant of Johnson, Stephens & Shinkle Shoe Company, his employer, “I was goosed and I jumped against the drinking fountain.” (All statutory references herein are to RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.) The referee in the first instance, and the Industrial Commission of Missouri on review, denied benefits because (in the language of the Commission) “the employee’s condition was not caused nor…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Weller v. Hayes Truck LinesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1946
  2. Francis v. Sam Miller Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1955
  3. Kattering v. FranzSupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
  4. Woods v. CantrellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1947
  5. Hall v. Spot Martin, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1957

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel ErectionSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
  2. Johnson v. Simpson Oil CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1965
  3. Lafayette Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Greater St. Louis v. KoontzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1974
  4. In Re in Interest of T____ G____Missouri Court of Appeals · 1970
  5. Slider v. Brown Shoe CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1957

11 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