Legal Opinion

Sears-Roebuck & Co. v. Finney

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided January 11, 1936PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Chambliss

The company appeals from a compensation award to Finney as totally and permanently disabled by an accidental injury suffered in the course of his employment by the company. It is said both that there is no material evidence to support the finding and that the evidence preponderates against the finding, and in justification of the second of these assignments it is urged that,contrary to the practice, this court should review the case de novo, treating the act of 1929 (chapter 94, section 1) as controlling. That act is expressly limited by its terms to the Court of Appeals, and this court would…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. RayTennessee Supreme Court · 1910
  2. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. ConnorsTennessee Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Lindsay v. AllenTennessee Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Moran v. WeinbergerTennessee Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Reed v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Atlas Powder Company v. LeisterTennessee Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Buck & Simmons Auto & Electric Supply Co. v. KestersonTennessee Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Riverside Mill Co. v. ParsonsTennessee Supreme Court · 1940
  4. American Plan Corp. v. MecredyTennessee Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Stallcup v. Carolina Wood Turning Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API