Legal Opinion

Rudd v. Fairforest Finishing Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided January 3, 1939No. 14797PublishedCited by 60 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice FishburnE.

The appellant, an employee of Fairforest Finishing Company, filed his claim for compensation with the South Carolina Industrial Commission alleging that he had suffered a compensable hernia on July 14, 1937, while in the course of his employment with this company. The compensation commissioner made an award in favor of the claimant. Upon appeal to the full commission the award was set aside, and the claim for compensation was denied. The judgment of the full commission was affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas.

The claim is based…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Baltimore & Phila. Steamboat Co. v. NortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Murdaugh v. Robert Lee Construction Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1937
  3. Merriam v. HamiltonOregon Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Phillips v. Dixie Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1938
  5. Spearman v. F. S. Royster Guano Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1938

3Cited by60 opinions

  1. West Virginia State Bar v. EarleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1939
  3. Wigfall v. Tideland Utilities, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
  4. Lucedale Veneer Co. v. RogersMississippi Supreme Court · 1950
  5. McDowell v. Stilley Plywood Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1947

55 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