Costley v. Nevada Industrial Insurance Commission
Nevada Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
The Nevada industrial insurance act defines an employee to be a "person in the service of an employer." The existence of a contract for hire in itself is not sufficient to establish this relationship, but in addition to the contract there must be the actual service. In the instant case the contract was entered into on November 2. By the very terms of the contract Costley was not to go to work until the morning of November 3. Therefore, when the alleged accident occurred on November 2, he was not in the service, as defined by the act, and would not be in the service of the company until the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hills v. BlairMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Hogan v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
- Chandler v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1919
- City of Milwaukee v. AlthoffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
- Virden v. SmithNevada Supreme Court · 1922
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- American International Vacations v. MacBrideNevada Supreme Court · 1983
- Nevada Industrial Commission v. PeckNevada Supreme Court · 1952
- Totton v. Long Lake Lumber Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1939
- MGM MIRAGE v. CottonNevada Supreme Court · 2005
- NEVEDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION v. DixonNevada Supreme Court · 1961
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.