Legal Opinion

Comerford v. Carr

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided January 6, 1930No. 12,320PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Butler

"William Comerford seeks a review of the judgment of the district court affirming the award of the Industrial Commission in favor of C. J. Carr.

1. It is said that Carr’s right to compensation is barred because Carr did not file with the commission within six months after sustaining the injury a notice claiming compensation. The statute, however, provides that the limitation “shall not apply to any claimant to whom compensation has been paid.” C. L. §4458, as amended in 1923 (S. L. 1923, c. 201, §15, p. 745). Counsel for Comerford contends that no compensation has been paid to Carr, and,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lackey v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1926
  2. Industrial Commission v. FunkSupreme Court of Colorado · 1920
  3. Hoshiko v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1928
  4. Industrial Commission v. Globe Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1923
  5. Ontario Mining Co. v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1929

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. HunterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
  2. Heckman v. WarrenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1951
  3. Kamp v. DisneySupreme Court of Colorado · 1943
  4. Industrial Commission v. MoynihanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1934
  5. Barlow v. Shawnee Investment Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1932

16 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