Legal Opinion
Ex Parte Thomas
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided April 19, 1923No. 6 Div. 810PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The petition is by a widow for compensation for the death of the husband, the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Ex parte Majestic Coal Co. et al., 208 Ala. 86, 93 So. 728.
The controversy was heard by the judge of the circuit court, who determined that petitioner was not entitled to compensation. Under this ruling the paramount question for decision is whether or not Mattie Thomas was dependent as contemplated in the Compensation Act. Gen. Acts 1919, p. 206; Ex parte Central Iron Coal Co., ante, p. 22, 95 So. 472.
The facts recited as "proven" in the case…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Bailey v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Woodward Iron Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- Greek v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Evans v. EvansSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Ex Parte Majestic Coal Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1922
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Ex Parte ColemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
- Bell v. Tennessee Coal, Iron R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1941
- Ex Parte Jagger Coal Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- H. C. Price Co. v. LeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.