Legal Opinion

Patton v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

Texas Commission of Appeals

Decided April 1, 1931No. 1433-5641PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHarvey, P. J.

On November 2, 1926, the plaintiff in error, R. R. Patton, who was an employee of Horton & Horton, sustained a personal injury in the course of his employment. The defendant in error, New Amsterdam Casualty Company, was the insurer under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Patton, in due time, presented his claim for compensation to the State Industrial Accident Board, and, on March 28, 1928, that board duly made its final decision awarding Patton compensation at the rate of $20 per week for 401 weeks, less payments already made. The casualty company, within twenty days after entry of said…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Oilmen's Reciprocal Assn. v. FranklinTexas Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Southern Casualty Co. v. MorganTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
  3. Lumbermen's Reciprocal Ass'n v. HendersonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
  4. Farmers' Life Ins. Co. v. WoltersTexas Commission of Appeals · 1928
  5. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. PattonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. International Union United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers Local 119 v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1991
  2. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hendrick Memorial HospitalTexas Commission of Appeals · 1943
  3. Brooks v. Texas Employers Insurance AssociationCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1962
  4. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hendricks Memorial HospitalTexas Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia v. SandersCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933

12 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