Legal Opinion

Pence v. Kettering

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 21, 1934No. 24488PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWeygandt, C. J.

The single assignment of error here urged by Pence is that the trial court should not have directed a verdict.

This case presents an anomalous situation in that the employer claims the employee was in the course of his employment, while the employee himself asserts he was not.

Was transportation a part of the employment contract between Pence and Kettering?

Both counsel insist that there is little direct conflict in the evidence; however, each strenuously contends that the only reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom are such as to require a directed verdict in favor of his client.

The…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Keesecker v. G. M. McKelvey Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Bennett v. Sinclair Refining Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Durbin v. Humphrey Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Sack v. A. R. Nunn & SonOhio Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Union Gas & Electric Co. v. HillOhio Court of Appeals · 1934

1 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