Legal Opinion

Hanks v. Southern Public Utilities Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 8, 1933PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeogdek, J.

Tbe defendant contended that tbe injury occurred subsequent to tbe enactment of tbe Workmen’s Compensation law, and that as a result tbe cause was cognizable by tbe Industrial Commission. Tbe plaintiff contended that tbe Workmen’s Compensation Act was unconstitutional for that it impaired tbe right of trial by jury, guaranteed by tbe Constitution of North Carolina.

Tbe constitutionality of tbe Workmen’s Compensation Act was upheld in Heavner v. Lincolnton, 202 N. C., 400, 162 S. E., 909. See, also, Hagler v. Highway Commission, 200 N. C., 733, 158 S. E., 383.

Tbe plaintiff alleges in paragraph…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Aycock v. . CooperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  2. Heavner v. Town of LincolntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  3. Haller v. Mecklenburg Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  4. Justice v. . SherardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Hanks v. Southern Public Utilities Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  2. Lee v. . American Enka Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  3. Tscheiller v. National Weaving Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. McCune v. Rhodes-Rhyne Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Miller v. . RobertsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937

10 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