Legal Opinion

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Olsen

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1903No. 12,961PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to the district court for Cass county: Paul Jessen, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtSedgwick, J.

The plaintiff in the court below was in the employ of the defendant company as a carpenter in ,its shops at Plattsmouth, Nebraska. He was also a member of the voluntary relief department of the company. The nature and terms of the contract of such membership are set forth in former opinions of this court. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Wymore, 40 Neb. 645; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Bell. 44 Neb. 44.

On the 14th day of August, 1896, while the plaintiff was engaged in his work for the ' company, he' was injured by one of the company’s locomotives, from the effects of which he suffered an amputation…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. WymoreNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. BellNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Clinton v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Town of ClontarfSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  2. Gordon v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1928
  3. Keith v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. HealyNebraska Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Walters v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1905

3 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