Legal Opinion

Rudy v. McCloskey & Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 27, 1942No. Appeal, 45PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Hirt, J.,

Defendant MeCIoskey & Company, in the course of constructing a building in the Borough of State College, requested a local labor union to supply workmen. G-eorge Albert Rudy was among those who appeared. He had been admitted to membership in the union on his representation that he was oyer 18 years of age, the minimum age requirement, and on October 26, 1938 when questioned, told defendant’s employment agent that he was bom on May 10, 1920. Relying on this representation defendant employed him as a laborer. On November 16,1938, when Rudy was about to remove a wheelbarrow…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Lewis v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  2. Rich Hill Coal Company v. BashoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Kay v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
  4. Blake v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  5. Hale v. Savage Fire Brick Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Daniels v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Tsarnas v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. East v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Ligonier Tavern, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

13 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