Stephens v. Borgman
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1DissentDavison, C.J.
I cannot concur in the conclusion reached in the majority opinion herein; not that I disagree with any of the principles of law therein set out, but that they are not applicable to the facts in the instant case. The record discloses that plaintiff was required to work twelve hours per day six days per week as an attendant at the Oklahoma Central •State Hospital at Norman, Oklahoma, going to work at 6 o’clock a. m. and quitting at 6 o’clock p. m., each day of the week except Thursday. That upon arriving at work in the morning her *46routine duties consisted of scrubbing the floors, bathing,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Holden v. HardySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Ruark v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 37Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1929
- Short v. Bullion-Beck & Champion Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1899
- Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. WallaceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.