Legal Opinion

Gunning v. Mead Corporation

District Court, E.D. Tennessee

Decided May 22, 1956No. 972PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TAYLOR, District Judge.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Court orally from the bench made findings of fact, the transcriptions of which have been carefully examined as to correctness and sufficiency. No additional findings are deemed necessary. Decision was reserved awaiting the filing of additional briefs and for closer and more extended study of the legal principles which apply to the findings, this being one of those occasional and difficult borderline cases.

Initially the findings point to the following as the controlling question. Is death from heart attack compensable where the first…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Swift & Co. v. HowardTennessee Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Patterson Transfer Co. v. LewisTennessee Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Benjamin F. Shaw Co. v. MusgraveTennessee Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Howell v. Charles H. Bacon Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1951
  5. Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. GangTennessee Supreme Court · 1946

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sweat v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1959
  2. Johnson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1959
  3. Blair v. Aluminum Co.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1962
  4. Billingsley v. DOE-1District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2021
  5. Obenschain v. American Mutual Liability InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API