Murray v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a painting job was not a regular part of the business because it was more extensive and specialized than a regular maintenance project
• holding that a painting job was not a regular part of the business because it was more extensive and specialized than a regular maintenance project
• holding that a painting job was not a regular part of the business because it was more extensive and specialized than a regular maintenance project
• holding that a painting job was not a regular part of the business because it was more extensive and specialized than a regular maintenance project
• “However, our legislature has extended this relationship and has made principal contractors liable under certain circumstances for injuries sustained by the employees of subcontractors[.]”
• painter injured when air duct collapsed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).