Legal Opinion

Crosby v. Nunnally Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 11, 1923No. 6 Div. 725PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.

One Mamie Davis, a minor, met her death while at work in the line and scope of her duties for the Nunnally Company, and her mother, Amie Crosby, brought suit against the Nunnally Company under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Laws 1919, p. 206) as a dependent of said Mamie Davis., The litigated issue between the parties related to the question of dependency — a disputed issue of fact upon the trial. The trial court found the issue in favor of the mother, and awarded her the sum of $3 per week for 300 weeks; and the Nunnally Company presents this application for writ of certiorari to review…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Woodward Iron Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  2. Greek v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1922
  3. Ex Parte W. T. Smith Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  4. Max J. Winkler Brokerage Co. v. CoursonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Ex Parte ColemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  2. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
  3. Bell v. Tennessee Coal, Iron R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1941
  4. Crowder v. Woodward Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  5. Ex Parte Woodward Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1924

16 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