Legal Opinion
Happel v. Bell
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided May 10, 1960No. 38807PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BERRY, Justice.
Claimant sought to recover compensation for disability sustained as a result of an accidental injury on June 3, 1958, consisting of a sunstroke.
Petitioners challenge, as unsupported by credible proof, the finding of the State Industrial Court that claimant’s thermic injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, 85 O.S. 1951 § 1 et seq. It is argued this Court should weigh the evidence and make an independent determination of the fact issue, which, petitioners urge, constitutes a jurisdictional question. In this we…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Standish Pipe Line Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1946
- L. C. Kimsey Heating & Plumbing Co. v. HouseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- Leflore-Poteau Coal Co. v. ThurstonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
- Sheehan Pipe Line Co. v. CruncletonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
- Smith v. ZweifelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- American Management Systems, Inc. v. BurnsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
- B & W Truck Service v. ClineSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
- Cherry v. Eagle-Picher CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1962
- Fox v. National CarrierSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
- Fox v. National CarrierSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.