Ruddy v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1DissentZimmerman, J.
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 of employment and with no regular hours of worh. He secured his customers wherever and whenever he could find them — on the streets, in their places of business and in their homes.
*479The claimant, 31 years.old…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Loper v. MorrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Ritchie v. WallerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Beem v. H. D. Lee Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
- Industrial Commission v. HenryOhio Supreme Court · 1932
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.