Gugler v. Industrial Accident Board
Montana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
The only substitute for a verified claim by the injured man himself is a claim by "some one legally authorized to act for him in his behalf," and Dr. Hayward, who was found by the trial court to have filed a claim on behalf of respondent, neither had nor assumed such authority, nor did Dr. Hayward in fact file any claim for, or on behalf of, the respondent.
The phrase "legally authorized to act for him in his behalf" is entirely meaningless and superfluous unless this court finds that any person making a claim on behalf of an injured man must have some kind of `legal authority' to do so.
It is…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Dosen v. East Butte Copper Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1927
- Lindblom v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Montana Supreme Court · 1930
- Chmielewska v. Butte & Superior Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1927
- Bianco v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Murray Hospital v. AngroveMontana Supreme Court · 1932
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ricks v. Teslow ConsolidatedMontana Supreme Court · 1973
- Graeber Bros., Inc. v. TaylorMississippi Supreme Court · 1959
- McCoy v. Mike Horse Mining & Milling Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1953
- State ex rel. Morgan v. Industrial Accident BoardMontana Supreme Court · 1956
- O'Bannon v. GustafsonMontana Supreme Court · 1956
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.