Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Scott v. Edwards Transportation Co.

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 9, 1991No. 72916Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRobertson, Judge

I concur in Part I of the majority opinion. However, I believe that Section 287.030.1, RSMo 1986, and Crall v. Hickman, 460 S.W.2d 668 (Mo. banc 1970), require a reversal of the award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission as to appellant Medwick Johnston and a remand for reconsideration in light of Crall. I, therefore, respectfully dissent from Part II of the majority opinion.

Crall decided that “a partnership is a separate employing entity under sec. 287.-030.” Id. at 672. Crall reaches this conclusion fully aware of and contrary to general partnership law in Missouri which follows…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gladys Child Soars v. Soars-Lovelace, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1940
  2. Brollier v. Van AlstineMissouri Court of Appeals · 1942
  3. Blew v. ConnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1959
  4. Humphries v. BrayCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1981
  5. Ward v. State Farmers Mutual Tornado Insurance Co. of MissouriSupreme Court of Missouri · 1969

5 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