Legal Opinion

National Zinc Company v. Hainline

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided January 10, 1961No. 39009PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BERRY, Justice.

The present proceeding was instituted under the provisions of the Occupational Disease Amendment to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 85 O.S.Supp., 1959, Sec. 3, Sub-divisions 7 and 16.

Claimant is a laborer, 55 years of age, who from April, 1936, until some ten months prior to his discharge, worked in close proximity to zinc-processing equipment at petitioner’s smelter in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. When increasing weakness prevented him from performing regular duties in the production department, he was assigned, in March, 1957, to lighter work in the bathhouse of the plant where he…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Nease v. Hughes Stone Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
  2. Giambattista v. Thomas A. EdisonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
  3. Weimer v. Sauder Tank Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1959
  4. Cupit v. Dancu Chemical CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1957
  5. Utah Const. Co. v. BergArizona Supreme Court · 1949

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Beaudry v. Winchester Plywood CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Wade Lahar Construction Company v. HowellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1962
  3. Blackwell Zinc Company v. ParkerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1965
  4. Walston v. Burlington IndustriesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  5. Star Printery Company v. PitmanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1962

13 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