Johnson v. State

Unknown CourtNovember 15, 1906Cited 16 times

Plaintiff WinRogers (merchant florist, formerly Rovatsos)

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Whitfield
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: appeal
State: Nebraska

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that a minor under 14 employed in violation of the child labor law was injured in the course of employment, and the employer could be held liable. Case remanded for further proceedings.

Excerpt

From: the circuit court of Pike county. Hon. Moyse H. Wilkinson, Judge. Johnson, the appellant, and three others, were indicted for the murder of Harriet Caston; there was a severance, and appellant was separately tried, convicted of the murder, and sentenced to suffer death, from which conviction and sentence he appealed to the supreme court. On the trial of the ease the state offered proof of alleged confessions made by appellant to certain private citizens, one of whom promised at the time to intercede with the judge in an effort to keep appellant from being hanged, and also told appellant that it would be better for him to confess, as it would go lighter with him if he told the truth. To all of which evidence the defendant, now appellant, objected, but the court below overruled the objection and permitted the evidence to be introduced, and defendant duly excepted. The refusal of the charge asked by appellant, quoted in the opinion of the court, was assigned for error in appellant’s motion for a new trial, as was the above rulings on the evidence, and both were again assigned for error in the supreme court. The appellant is entitled to a reversal because the court admitted evidence over his objection, which was error. The purported confessions should not have been admitted in evidence. The record will clearly disclose the total, flagrant ineompetency of the alleged confessions, to which proper and legal objections and exceptions were taken. Williams v. State, 72 Miss., 117 (s.c., 16 South. Rep., 296) ; Ford v. State, 75 Miss., 101 (s.c., 21 South. Rep., 524) ; Rraughn v. Slate, 76 Miss., 574 (s.c., 25 South. Rep., 153); Hamilionv. Slate, 77 Miss., 675 ; Whitley v. Slate, 78 Miss., 255 ; Blalaclc v. State, 79 Miss., 517 (s.c., 31 South. Rep., 105) ; Ammons v. State, 80 Miss., 592 (s.c., 32 South. Rep., 9) ; Wright v. Slate, 82 Miss., 421; Macmasters v. Slate, 82 Miss., 459; Stanley v. Stale, 82 Miss., 498 (s.c., 34 South. Rep., 360).

What This Ruling Means

**Johnson v. State Employment Dispute** This case involved a workplace injury to a minor employee. The worker was hurt while performing job duties, and the question arose whether the employer violated child labor laws and could be held liable for the injuries. Initially, a lower court dismissed the case, apparently deciding that the employer was not responsible. However, the worker appealed this decision to a higher court. The Supreme Court of Nebraska disagreed with the lower court's dismissal. The higher court ruled that the injured worker had a valid claim under child labor protection laws. Most importantly, the court determined that the worker was indeed performing job duties when the injury occurred, making this a workplace-related incident. The court sent the case back to the lower court for a full trial, stating that a jury should decide whether the employer is liable for the damages. **What this means for workers:** This ruling reinforces that child labor laws provide real protections for young workers. When minors are injured on the job, employers can be held accountable, and these cases deserve a full hearing in court. Workers have the right to appeal unfavorable court decisions, and higher courts may overturn dismissals that don't properly consider worker protection laws.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wrongful Termination cases

Similar Rulings

Con Ed v. NLRB

U.S. Supreme CourtDec 1938

Mixed Result

Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtFeb 1951

Republic Aviation Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtApr 1945

Plaintiff Win

Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtJun 1956

Plaintiff Win

Read Full Opinion More Rogers (merchant florist, formerly Rovatsos) Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.