Legal Opinion
Hayhurst v. Henry
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided December 20, 1951No. Civ. A. No. 1364PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DOOLEY, District Judge.
The plaintiff herein, Hayhurst, a citizen of Missouri, has sued the defendants Henry and wife, citizens of Texas, to recover damages in excess of $3,000.00 for personal injuries sustained December' 1, 1949. The plaintiff at said time was an employee of the Hereford Gin Company at Hereford, Texas, a subscriber under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 8306 et seq., and its insurer was Texas National Mutual Insurance Company of Fort Worth, Texas, incorporated under the laws of Texas. The plaintiff claimed that his injuries in question were…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Payne v. HookSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Horn v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Traders & General Ins. Co. v. West Texas Utilities Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1942
- Houston Gas & Fuel Co. v. PerryTexas Commission of Appeals · 1936
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cleaves v. De LauderDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 1969
- Northeast Clackamas County Electric Co-Operative, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
- Northeast Clackamas County Electric Co-Operative, Inc., a Corporation v. Continental Casualty Company, a Corporation, and S. H. Ripp, Doing Business as Ripp Electric Company, S. H. Ripp, Doing Business as Ripp Electric Company v. Northeast Clackamas County Electric Cooperative, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955