Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hallmark v. Oklahoma Publishing Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 14, 1950No. 34011Published

1DissentArnold, C.J.

I dissent to the majority opinion because in my opinion claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of hazardous employment covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Undoubtedly, the boiler room, in which was situated the usual boiler equipment, a large paper pressing machine, a work bench with all sorts of simple tools for making ordinary repairs in the maintenance of an office building, and the electrically driven floor washing and polishing machines when not in use, is a workshop under the definition thereof in the Workmen’s Compensation Law (85 O.S. 1941 §3). Unquestionably, the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McDuffie v. Nash Neon Sign Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1949
  2. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. NickensSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API