Legal Opinion
Consolidated Coal Co. v. Dill
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided May 9, 1946No. 6 Div. 414PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GARDNER, Chief Justice.
Proceedings under the workmen’s compensation statute (Chapter 5, Title 26, Code 1940) by A. M. Dill against Consolidated Coal Company. From a judgment awarding compensation, the employer Coal Company seeks review by certiorari.
In proceedings of this character-compliance with technical rules of pleading is not required. Ex parte Coleman, 211 Ala. 248, 100 So. 114; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Watts, 236 Ala. 636, 184 So. 201; Randle v. Dumas, 229 Ala. 396, 157 So. 218; Alabama Concrete Pipe Co. v. Berry, 226 Ala. 204, 146 So. 271; Ex parte National Pipe & Foundry…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Gentry v. Swann Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1937
- Pow v. Southern Const. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1938
- Ex Parte ColemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- Galloway Coal Co. v. StanfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Young v. Melrose Granite Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Southern Cotton Oil Company v. WynnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1957
- Swift & Co. v. RollingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1949
- Reints v. DiehlSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1956
- United Telephone and Telegraph Company v. CuliverSupreme Court of Alabama · 1961
- Patton v. RobisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1950
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.