Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Johnson v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 20, 1977No. 8013Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKeith, Justice

This is a most unusual case.

Plaintiffs employer determined that he was an employee within the meaning of § 902(3), Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act [33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-50 (Supp.1977) amending portions of 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-50 (1970)], hereinafter “LHWCA”; the plaintiff agreed in this determination by accepting some $3,000 from Bethlehem in payment of benefits under LHWCA; and, now this court has agreed that the parties made the correct determination of coverage: Plaintiff was, indeed, covered as a beneficiary under LHWCA when he was injured. I concur in the first section of…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. CaputoSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Nacirema Operating Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Federal Underwriters Exchange v. PughTexas Supreme Court · 1943

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