Legal Opinion

Industrial Commission v. Stong

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 29, 1925No. 11,035PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burke

These parties occupy the same relative position as in the trial court and for convenience we refer to them as. they appeared there.

Plaintiff directed defendant Stong (state treasurer and as such custodian of the state compensation insurance fund, hereinafter called the insurance fund) to invest in United States bonds. Instead Stong bought other securities. Plaintiff thereupon brought mandamus and had judgment. It then brought this suit for $33,788.07 damages, loss to the insurance fund by reason of Stong’s disobedience. To review a judgment entered against it plaintiff brings error.

Our…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Amy v. The SupervisorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
  2. Smith v. BerrymanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1917
  3. Stong v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1922
  4. State ex rel. Alexander v. RyanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
  5. Smith v. BerrymanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Glover v. FongHawaii Supreme Court · 1958
  2. State v. ConleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1937
  3. City of Colorado Springs v. StreetSupreme Court of Colorado · 1927
  4. Chez, Atty. Gen. v. Industrial Comm. of UtahUtah Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Chez, Atty. Gen. v. Industrial Comm. of UtahUtah Supreme Court · 1936

1 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