Legal Opinion
Shultz v. Lion Oil Co.
District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Decided July 31, 1952No. Civ. No. 566PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHN E. MILLER, District Judge.
The defendant has moved for summary judgment on the ground that the right of plaintiff, if any, to recover for the alleged injury is limited solely and exclusively to the rights afforded by the Workmen’s Compensation Law of Arkansas in effect at the time of the alleged injury, and that because the rights of the plaintiff are so limited, this Court has no jurisdiction to grant plaintiff the relief which she is seeking.
In the interest of clarity, the proceedings heretofore had herein should be briefly reviewed.
The plaintiff filed her complaint in the Circuit Court…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Taylor v. Hubbell Tucson Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. v. HubbellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
- Hagger, Admx. v. Wortz Biscuit CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
- Mandel v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
- Odom v. Arkansas Pipe & Scrap Material Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Armistead v. C & M Transport, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- Hopson v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1956
- Huffstettler v. Lion Oil Co.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1953
- Ragsdale v. WatsonDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1962
- State Ex Rel. Haddock Engineers, Ltd. v. SwopeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1952
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.