Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Farr v. Mid-Continent Lead & Zinc Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 27, 1940No. 34,334Published

1ConcurrenceWedell, J.

I concur in the conclusion of the majority and in substance with most of what is said in the majority opinion on rehearing. Certain questions have been raised in the petition for rehearing filed by the claimant (appellee) and in petitions of amici curiae for rehearing filed by the firm of T. N. Tincher, Clyde Raleigh, both of Hutchinson, and Leaford F. Cushenbery, of Medicine Lodge, and J. Herb Wilson, of Salina, attorney for A. V. Lundgren, president of the Kansas State Federation of Labor, and in two dissenting opinions. In the light of those questions I desire to write my own views.

I…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. MatlockSupreme Court of Kansas · 1940
  2. Lehman v. Grace Oil Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1940
  3. Walker v. Kansas Gasoline Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1930
  4. Yehle v. Stamey-Tidd Construction Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1939
  5. Chikowsky v. Central Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API