Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Woodward Iron Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 6, 1924No. 6 Div. 10PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.

The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled, since it contained a distinct allegation of every matter specified by section 28 of the Workmen’s Oompensation Act (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 227).

A strenuous contention is made by counsel for defendant that the special matters of defense set up under subdivision 3 of its answer did not present the issue of “willful misconduct,” and hence that a jury trial of those matters was not authorized by the act, and their submission to the jury was erroneous.

Section 9 of the act provides that comp'ensation shall be paid in every ease of personal injury or…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Citizen's L. H. & P. Co. v. LeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
  2. McCutchen v. LogginsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
  3. Beatty v. PalmerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
  4. Nickerson's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  5. Montg. So. Railway Co. v. SayreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Ætna Life Insurance v. CarrollSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
  2. Walker v. WoodallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1972
  3. Royals v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1951
  4. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. NationsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
  5. Sun Papers, Inc. v. JerrellCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1981

15 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