Gardner v. Simmons (1963)
green
· 52 citation events
across 4 courts.
Showing the 15 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
196419952026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Michael Littleton v. Brandon McNeely (2009)
“Specifically, when a person operates an automobile of another while the owner is a passenger, acquiescing in the operation, there is a presumption that the driver is the agent of the owner and within the scope of his agency.” Id. (citing Perricone v. DeBlaze, 655 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983)). “[T]he principal must have a -7- ‘right to control’ the agent.” Id. (citing Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo. 1963)).
green
Littleton v. McNeely (2009)
App.1983)). “[T]he principal must have a ‘right to control’ the agent.” Id. (citing Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo.1963)).
green
Sharp v. W. & W. TRUCKING COMPANY (1967)
Gardner v. Simmons, Mo., 370 S.W.2d 359, 360 [1].
green
Dean v. Young (1965)
Gardner v. Simmons, Mo.Sup., 370 S.W.2d 359, 362 [5]; Talley v. Bowen Const. Co., Mo.Sup., 340 S.W.2d 701 ; Frank v. Sinclair Refining Co., 363 Mo. 1054 , 256 S.W.2d 793, 797 [5]; Benham v. McCoy, Mo.Sup., 213 S.W.2d 914 , 919 [7-11].
green
State Ex Rel. Henley v. Bickel (2009)
Master-Servant “In order to establish a principal/agent relationship between [Pansy and Donald], the principal must have a ‘right to control.’ ” Bach v. Winfield-Foley Fire Protection District, 257 S.W.3d 605, 608 (Mo. banc 2008); Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo.1963).
green
Bargfrede v. American Income Life Insurance Co. (2000)
Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359, 363 (Mo.1963).
green
K.C. 1986 Ltd. Partnership v. Reade Manufacturing (1998)
Relations Comm’n of Mo., 902 *828 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Mo.App.1995); Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo.1963).
green
J.M. v. Shell Oil Co. (1996)
Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo.1963).
green
Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc. (1992)
Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359, 364 (Mo.1963).
green
Cloninger v. Wolfe (1972)
The ultimate test in determining whether a person is a servant or bears some other relationship to the supposed master is whether the latter had the right to exercise control over the details of the servant’s work [Gardner v. Simmons, Mo., 370 S.W.2d 359, 362 (5)]; if one renders service to another and retains control over the manner of doing it, then he is not a servant.
green
Brannaker v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. (1968)
Gardner v. Simmons, Mo., 370 S.W.2d 359, 364 [7]; Curtis v. Juengel, Mo.App., 297 S.W.2d 598 , 601 and cases cited therein.
green
Snyder v. Hedges (1964)
Gardner v. Simmons, Mo., 370 S.W.2d 359, 366 (10); Cox v. Wrinkle, Mo., 267 S.W.2d 648, 653 (8); Bauman v. Conrad, Mo.App., 342 S.W.2d 284, 290 (11); Davison v. Farr, Mo.App., 273 S.W.2d 500, 505 (12) ; Polkowski v. St.
green
Bach v. Winfield-Foley Fire Protection District (2008)
See Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo.1963).
green
Massey v. Hamilton (1979)
See Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359, 364 (Mo.1963) wherein the Supreme Court held, “[Ojrdinarily an employee going to or returning home from his place of employment is not engaged in the prosecution of his employer’s business during either trip.” This standard, however, is not absolute and the law will not permit the employer or master to escape his responsibility if the employer is benefited during the course of the coming or going.
green
Burks v. Leap (1967)
See also Gardner v. Simmons, Mo., 370 S.W.2d 359 , in which it was for the jury to say whether a salesman, employed by defendant tire company, was engaged in scope of employment at the time of an accident which occurred as the employee and a mechanic were checking the employee’s automobile which had broken down on the way to work to determine if it was all right for the salesman to use on his job of calling on his employer’s customers the rest of the day.