Clark v. . Woolen Mills
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtClaeksoN, J.
The questions involved: (1) Did the plaintiff’s injury arise out of and in the course of the employment? (2) Was the award as made by the Commission in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act? We think both questions must be answered in the affirmative.
The Workmen’s Compensation Law, chap. 120, Public Laws of 1929, section 2(f) (N. C. Code, 1931 (Michie), sec. 8081 (i), subsec. (f), is as follows: “ ‘Injury’ and ‘personal injury’ shall mean only injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, and shall not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Johnson v. Charlotte Bagging Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Richey v. Erlanger Cotton MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
3Cited by7 opinions
- Gilmore v. . Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Gilmore v. Hoke County Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Wray v. . Woolen MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Blalock v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Creighton v. . SnipesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.