Legal Opinion · Dissent

Armstrong Tire & Rubber Co. v. Payton

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided May 9, 1966No. 43886Published

1DissentRodgers, Justice

(dissenting) :

With due respect for the fine study my astute colleagues have given to the problem here involved, I must, nevertheless, register my objection to the results reached in the majority opinion in this case. I agree with the cases cited, but I do not agree with the interpretation here being put upon them. In the majority opinion, we say that we do not intend to overrule those cases which require that the affirmative defense of apportionment be pleaded and proven, because, it is said, the widow-claimant had to plead and prove that the deceased-workman’s *225heart aneurysm was aggravated…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Aldrich v. AldrichSupreme Court of Florida · 1964
  2. Williams v. LumpkinMississippi Supreme Court · 1934
  3. L. B. Priester & Son, Inc. v. Dependents of BynumMississippi Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Noxubee County v. LongMississippi Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Southeastern Construction Co. v. Dependent of DodsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1963

10 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