Legal Opinion

Hale v. Royal Logging

Montana Supreme Court

Decided December 7, 1999No. 99-074PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Regnier

¶1 Wesley Hale appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment of the Workers’ Compensation Court, which declared that Hale was not entitled to permanent partial disability benefits under § 92-703.1, RCM (1975) and that Hale was not entitled to attorney fees or costs. The determinative issue on appeal is whether the Workers’ Compensation Court erred when it concluded that Hale was not entitled to permanent partial disability benefits under § 92-703.1, RCM (1975). We reverse and remand.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Hale, a third-generation logger, began his career in the timber…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Buckman v. Montana Deaconess HospitalMontana Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Shaffer v. Midland Empire Packing Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Fermo v. Superline ProductsMontana Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Turjan v. Valley View EstatesMontana Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Dunn v. Champion International Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Goble v. Montana State FundMontana Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Wilkes v. Montana State FundMontana Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Geiger v. Uninsured Employers' FundMontana Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Dunnington v. State Compensation Insurance FundMontana Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Geiger v. Uninsured Employers' FundMontana Supreme Court · 2002

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