Legal Opinion

Butterfield v. State Industrial Accident Commission

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 18, 1924PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

It is the contention of the Attorney General that the State Industrial Accident Commission is an arm of the state, administering the act commonly known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act, *153and that the state is, therefore, the real party in interest. From these premises he argues, because the state cannot be sued, the Industrial Accident Commission cannot be. The legislature has provided that the Industrial Accident Commission “in its name may sue and be sued, and shall have a seal which shall bear the name of the commission.” Section 6611, Or. L. The commission is given other powers exercised…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Evanhoff v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1915
  2. In re Willow CreekOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Chebot v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Lough v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Smith v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Taylor v. New Jersey Highway AuthoritySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1956
  2. DeLong Corporation v. Oregon State Highway Com'nDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1964
  3. Rosell v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1940
  4. State Ex Rel. Eckles v. WoolleyOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  5. United Contracting Co. v. DubyOregon Supreme Court · 1930

23 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