Legal Opinion · Dissent

Charles T. Pulley v. Peter Kiewit Son's Co., a Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided June 15, 1955No. 11360_1Published

1DissentSchnackenberg, Circuit Judge

In this common law action plaintiff's employment by defendants has no legal significance. Plaintiff is suing upon a contract with defendants under which it is admitted that, in consideration of $40.25 per week paid by plaintiff to defendants, defendants agreed to furnish plaintiff his room and board, laundry, and medical and dental care. The weekly payments were in the form of deductions made by defendants from plaintiff’s salary. It is alleged that plaintiff, needing the services of a dentist, was sent by the defendants to one Dr. C. L. Alein, a dentist carelessly and negligently hired by…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. Hurley v. LoweCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1948
  3. Hastorf-Nettles, Inc. v. PillsburyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
  4. State Ex Rel. Haddock Engineers, Ltd. v. SwopeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Cardillo v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940

2 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