Legal Opinion

Zimmer v. Casey

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 4, 1928No. Appeal, 162PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

Zimmer, plaintiff, and Casey, defendant, were decorating upholsterers in the employ of Lit Brothers. They were sent to do upholstering work at Bethlehem. Lit Brothers’ superintendent directed that instead of going by train they should journey in an automobile owned and operated by Casey, the employers, Lit Brothers, to pay the expense of transportation. Whilst thus journeying together to Bethlehem an accident occurred and plaintiff was injured, as he claims, through the negligent operation of the vehicle by Casey. Both parties received compensation from their…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Mathison v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
  2. Ross v. Erickson Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Fields v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  4. Gallivan v. Wark Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  5. Ross v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Feitig v. ChalkleySupreme Court of Virginia · 1946
  2. Ransom v. HanerAlaska Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Dolan v. Linton's LunchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  4. Schumacher v. LeslieSupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
  5. Schumacher v. LeslieSupreme Court of Missouri · 1950

42 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