Legal Opinion

Teague v. State Industrial Commission

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided October 27, 1925No. 16294PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

ESTES, C.

Prom an award of $12.50 per week to Stephie Hunnicut, W. T. Teague, doing business as Crystal Bottling Works, seeks review, assigning as error, that his business does not come within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for that the business was not “hazardous employment,” in that the place was neither a “factory” nor “workshop,” for that the machinery therein was not power-driven. Petitioner manufactured drinks in one large room containing all the machinery. The injury covered by the award herein was a total loss of one eye to respondent, caused by the explosion…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Southwestern Grocery Co. v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
  2. Brown v. Sinclair Refining Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
  3. Merrick & Coe v. ModlinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Standard Savings & Loan Ass'n v. WhitneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
  2. Sunshine Food Stores v. MooreheadSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
  3. Mathers v. SellersDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1959
  4. Lee Way Stage Lines v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  5. Maryland Casualty Co. v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930

4 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