Legal Opinion

Huff v. Aetna Insurance Company

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided March 20, 1961No. 19597PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sutton

In the trial court plaintiffs in error were plaintiffs and defendants in error were defendants. We shall refer to *64the plaintiffs (three minor children of Creed S. Huff) as “claimants”; to defendant in error Frank C. Klein & Company as “employer”; to Industrial Commission of Colorado as the “Commission” and to Creed S. Huff as the “decedent.”

Claimants sought recovery under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for the death of their father. The findings and conclusions of a referee were adverse to the claimants, and the Commission approved and confirmed the referee’s findings. The case was then taken…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Carroll v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1920
  2. Industrial Commission v. HavensSupreme Court of Colorado · 1957
  3. Industrial Commission v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1955
  4. Bennett v. Durango Furniture Mart & Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1957
  5. Marotte v. State Compensation Insurance FundSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Blood v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1968
  2. Industrial Commission v. HeslerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1962
  3. T & T Loveland Chinchilla Ranch v. BournSupreme Court of Colorado · 1970
  4. Baca County School District No. RE-6 v. BrownSupreme Court of Colorado · 1965
  5. Evans v. City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1968

2 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