King v. Arthur
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDenny, J.
The defendant employer was under compulsion of law to see that the employees in his dairy took a Wassermann test each six months. If he failed to see that such tests were made and to furnish evidence thereof, upon request, to the Buncombe County Board of Health as required by its rules and regulations, his dairy would become subj ect to “immediate degrading, suspension of permit,” and he would become guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction subject to a fine or imprisonment, as provided in G.S. 130-20.
Therefore, the question posed for determination is simply this: Does an injury sustained…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Smith v. Seamless Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Alewine v. Tobin Quarries, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1945
- Woschenko v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1949
- Saintsing v. Steinbach CompanyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
- Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1930
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Maher v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Hicks's CaseMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2005
- Suniland Toys and Juvenile Furniture, Inc. v. KarnsSupreme Court of Florida · 1963
- Atiles Moreu v. Comisión IndustrialSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1962
- Atiles Moréu v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1962