Legal Opinion

Maher v. Wagner

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1934No. File No. 7522PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRudolph, J.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a dishwasher in defendant’s restaurant. The defendant had not complied with the Workmen’s Compensation Law. (Rev. Code 1919, § 9436 et seq., as amended). At the time the plaintiff first commenced her work, there was among the utensils in the kitchen an instrument for cleaning and washing dishes known in the evidence as a “chore girl.” This instrument was composed of a mesh of small copper wires and used for the purpose of removing food and grease from dishes and pans. The evidence disclosed that these instruments were sold throughout the Black…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Allen Gravel Co. v. YarbroughMississippi Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Hedicke v. Highland Springs Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
  3. Brown v. Swift & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Stevenson v. DourosSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Royal v. White Oil Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Bartlett v. GreggSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Ricketts v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. of MaineSupreme Court of Missouri · 1972
  3. Stoner v. EggersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Schnell v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Bunkers v. MouselSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1967

9 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