Legal Opinion

Gogoff v. Industrial Commission

Utah Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1931No. 5051PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFolland, J.

Certiorari to review an order of the Industrial Commission of Utah denying compensation to plaintiff for injuries resulting from an accident while working at the quarry of the defendant Southern Pacific Company at Lakeside, Utah, The findings and decision of the commission were as follows :

“Alex Gogoff, the applicant herein, on the 26th day of March, 1929, was employed by Murray E. Bums. Murray E. Burns had a contract with the Southern Pacific Company to drill coyote holes at Lakeside and Lucin, Utah. Murray E. Burns was an independent contractor, as defined in section 3110 of the State…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Powell v. Construction Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Dayton v. FreeUtah Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Helton v. Tall Timber Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1920
  4. Ludlow v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Stricker v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1920

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Moore & Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938
  2. Christean v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Luker Sand & Geavel Co. v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Gleason v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Murch Bros. Const. Co. v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1934

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API