Legal Opinion
Harden v. United States Casualty Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided July 11, 1934No. 24022PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGuerry, J.
1. While it is true that it has been stated by our courts that although the workmen’s compensation act is in derogation of the common law (which would generally call for a strict construction of the act), yet in view of its beneficent purposes and remedial character, it should be so liberally and broadly construed as to effect the general purpose in every instance in which the language is such as to render judicial construction necessary (Austin Bridge Co. v. Whitmire, 31 Ga. App. 560, 121 S. E. 345; Von Treeck v. Travelers Insurance Co., 157 Ga. 204, 121 S. E. 215; New Amsterdam Casualty Co.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. SumrellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. EnglandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
- Georgia Casualty Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
- Austin Bros. Bridge Co. v. WhitmireCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Van Treeck v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wilson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1944
- Liberty Mutual Insurance v. HenryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
- Sims v. American Mutual Liability InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Travelers Insurance Company v. LesterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946