Legal Opinion

Bowling v. Whitley

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 1961PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burnett

This is a Workmen’s Compensation case under Section 50-901 et seq., T.C.A. The plaintiff, petitioner, defendant in error, was allowed compensation against Liggett and Hoffman. He was denied compensation against Bowling, because Bowling, the subcontractor, did not have five employees. An appeal has been seasonably perfected by Liggett and Hoffman, assignments and briefs have been filed, arguments heard, and after reading the record, briefs, etc., we have the matter for disposition.

The trial judge found:

“On March 4, 1958, petitioner, John Whitley, received an accidental injury to his left knee…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Swift & Co. v. HowardTennessee Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Williams v. BuchananTennessee Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Minor v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1932
  4. State v. RawlingsTennessee Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Burke v. North Vernon Lumber MillsCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1931

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Murray v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Acklie v. CarrierTennessee Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Brown v. Canterbury Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Johnson v. Roane CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1963
  5. American Surety Company v. KizerTennessee Supreme Court · 1963

3 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