Legal Opinion
City of Chicago v. Pizel
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided July 1, 1942No. Gen. No. 42,049PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett
delivered the opinion of the court.
Plaintiff filed suit based on section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. (Smith-Hurd’s Ann. Stats., ch. 48, par. 166, p. 643 [Jones Ill. Stats. Ann. 143.44].) Defendant made a motion to strike, supported by affidavit. The motion was sustained, and the suit dismissed with judgment, and plaintiff appeals.
The material facts in brief are that the City and its employees are under the Act; that on February 6, 1939, Hynan, an electrician employed by the City, was injured through the negligence of Pizel in driving an automobile; that…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- O'Brien v. Chicago City Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1922
- Uphoff v. Industrial BoardIllinois Supreme Court · 1915
- Hoyne v. DanischIllinois Supreme Court · 1914
- Baker & Conrad, Inc. v. Chicago Heights Construction Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1936
- Faber v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Grasse v. Dealer's Transport Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1952
- Johnson v. TurnerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1943
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. ShieldsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1943
- Rylander v. Chicago Short Line Railway Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1958
- First Nat. Bank v. M & G Convoy, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1952