Legal Opinion

Dravo Corporation v. Copeland

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1941No. 34338PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlexander, J.

Dravo Corporation was engaged in building piers for the bridge crossing the Mississippi River at Natchez. One of these piers, Pier No. 2, was located near the middle of the river. Pier No. 1 was located on the Mississippi side, but due to the low stage of the river at that time, stood on dry ground connected with the river bank. The plaintiff was engaged as a. crane operator on Pier No. 2. In order to serve the convenience and safety of its employees and to expedite the work, the defendant undertook to transport its employees, including plaintiff, to and from their work by boat. Although the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Hughes v. Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
  2. Wilson v. Valley Improvement Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Lindgren v. William Bros Boiler Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
  4. Regan v. DonovanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
  5. Sharpley v. WrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Paul v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
  2. Annie Mae Brazier v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
  3. Annie Mae Brazier v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
  4. Paul v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API