Myers v. American Well Works

4 Citing cases

  1. Mandro v. Vibbert

    170 F.2d 540 (4th Cir. 1948)   Cited 8 times

    At the outset it is well to recall the settled rule that in considering a motion for a directed verdict the evidence must be considered in its aspect most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, with every fair and reasonable inference which the evidence justifies. Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 94, 50 S.Ct. 231, 74 L.Ed. 720; Myers v. American Well Works, 4 Cir., 114 F.2d 252, 253, certiorari denied 313 U.S. 563, 61 S.Ct. 842, 85 L.Ed. 1522; Harris v. United States, 4 Cir., 70 F.2d 889, 890. The evidence offered by the plaintiff to establish his case was admittedly scant, consisting principally of the testimony of a Miss Bullock, the only eyewitness to the accident other than the actual participants.

  2. Masonite Corporation v. Handshoe

    208 Miss. 166 (Miss. 1950)   Cited 7 times

    The court held this to be incompetent and sustained the objection. It does not seem necessary to cite authorities to the effect that insolence toward, and the exhibition of disrespect for, a superior is sufficient ground for discharge. It seems to the writer that if the courts should deny to the manager of a business the right to discharge an employee who threatens to kill the head of the department who has the duty of directing and supervising the insolent employee and calling his assistant a liar, then there will be an end to efficient management or the smooth working of any organization. Ernst v. Grand Rapid Co., 173 Mich. 254, 138 N.W. 1050; Myers v. American Wells Works, 114 F.2d 252; Blue v. Chandler, 5 So.2d 210; Dayton Rubber Co. v. Brown, 156 N.E. 136, 116 Ohio St. 373; Clark v. Pinkerton, 111 Pa. Super. 150, 169 A. 413; Griffin Co. v. Thaxton, 178 Ark. 736, 118 W. 2d 473; White v. Mandel Bros., 248 Ill. App. 313, and Dorrance v. Hoopes, 122 Md. 344, 90 A. 92, Am. Anno. Cases, 1916A. IV.

  3. Boock v. Napier

    120 N.E.2d 244 (Ill. App. Ct. 1954)   Cited 2 times

    " The cases of Myers v. American Well Works, 114 F.2d 252, and Bright v. Ganas, 171 Md. 493, cited by defendants, have no particular application to the case before us. [2-4] The master made no specific finding as to whether plaintiff made the statements attributed to him by the various witnesses testifying for defendants. He considers the testimony as being of little, if any, weight and ignores it in his final conclusions and recommendations.

  4. Greene v. Hawaiian Dredging Co., Ltd.

    151 P.2d 560 (Cal. Ct. App. 1944)   Cited 2 times

    3) A promise by an employee to obey the lawful and reasonable orders of his employer within the scope of his employment is implied by law in all contracts of employment. (May v. New York Motion Picture Corp., supra, 45 Cal.App. 402 et seq., 187 P. 785; Walker v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 80 N.J.L. 342, 79 A. 354, 356, 35 L.R.A.,N.S., 153, Ann.Cas.1912A, 526; Myers v. American Well Works, 4 Cir., 114 F.2d 252, 253). From the foregoing undisputed facts it is clear that plaintiff by the notice he posted on the bulletin board the evening of April 20, 1941, indicated his refusal to comply with a reasonable order of defendants by refusing to accept the check-in, check-out system defendants had adopted.