Legal Opinion

Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Mizelle

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided June 14, 1923PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPrentis, J.

Peeler Mizelle, hereafter called the plaintiff, recovered of the plaintiff in error, hereafter called the company, for the loss of one of his eyes while employed by the company in its machine shops at Richmond. He was a machinist with seventeen years experience, and was at the time, April 19, 1920, at work upon a new frame upon an engine which had been shopped for repairs. The frame of an engine is that part to which most of its working parts are attached in one way or another, is very heavy and bears a large portion of the weight of the engine. The plaintiff thus describes the occurrence…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Seaboard Air Line Railway v. HortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. WintersSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  4. Industrial Accident Comm'n of Cal. v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  5. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. MarpoleSupreme Court of Virginia · 1899

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Cato v. Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1931
  2. Simmons v. AdamsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1961
  3. Day v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Farmer's Administratrix v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1926
  5. Roberts v. Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Virginia · 1928

4 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