Legal Opinion

Keilman v. Dar Tile Company

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1964No. 7412PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MOISE, Justice.

This workmen’s compensation action requires a determination of the proper method of computing the time within which an action must be filed after the failure or refusal of the employer or insurer to pay compensation. § 59-10-13.6, N.M.S.A.1953.

The facts, as found by the trial court, are not disputed. Appellant was injured April 12, 1961. The first compensation payment was due not later than May 13, 1961. Payments were' not made by that date. The present action was filed Monday, May .14, 1962.'

A workman is required to file a claim “not later than one [1] year after the failure *…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Swallows v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Johnston v. New Omaha Thomson-Houston Electric Light Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1910
  3. United States Ex Rel. Strona v. BusseyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1943
  4. Saavedra v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Hardbarger v. DealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ortiz v. Ortiz & Torres Dri-Wall CompanyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1972
  2. Dutton v. McKinley County Board of CommissionersNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Rayburn v. Boys Super Market, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Ortiz v. Ortiz & Torres Dri-Wall CompanyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1972
  5. Rayburn v. Boys Super Market, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1964

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API