Legal Opinion

Floro v. Ticehurst

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided March 5, 1938No. 33,726PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This was a workmen’s compensation case. The claimants are dependents of the workman, Roscoe Floro, whose death resulted from an accident. The principal question in the case was whether the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent, Bert Ticehurst. All other questions entitling the claimants to compensation as against him were stipulated at the hearing. The trial court denied compensation, and the claimants have appealed.

Except as deductions and conclusions might be drawn from them, the facts are not…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Cox v. Kansas City Refining Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1921
  2. Rush v. Empire Oil & Refining Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1934
  3. Bevard v. Skidmore-Patterson Coal Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1917
  4. Stringer v. MeeseSupreme Court of Kansas · 1923
  5. Sellers v. Reice Construction Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1927

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Pinkston v. Rice Motor Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1956
  2. Bailey v. Mosby Hotel Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1945
  3. Carney v. HellarSupreme Court of Kansas · 1942
  4. Siebert v. HochSupreme Court of Kansas · 1967
  5. Hensley v. Carl Graham GlassSupreme Court of Kansas · 1979

9 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