Legal Opinion

Brown v. Moorhead Oil Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided February 15, 1962No. 17878PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Lewis, Justice.

The claimant, George T. Brown; was injured in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment by Crown. Royal Service, Inc. This corporation was not subject to the Workmen’s Compensation Law because it employed less than 15 employees and had not elected to operate under the provisions of that Act. Sections 72-13 and 72-109, 1952 Code of Laws. The claimant filed for Workmen’s Compensation benefits against the appellant, Moorhead Oil Company, which was subject to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, contending that although' working for Crown Royal Service, Inc., he…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McDowell v. Stilley Plywood Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1947
  2. Adams v. Davison-Paxon Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1957
  3. Miles v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1948
  4. Gordon v. Hollywood-Beaufort Package Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1948
  5. Cribbs v. Southern Coatings & Chemical Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1950

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Boggs v. Blue Diamond Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
  2. Bridges v. Wyandotte Worsted Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1963
  3. Latham v. Technar, Inc.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1974
  4. Thomas v. Hycon, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1965
  5. O'BRIEN v. Grumman Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1979

13 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