Legal Opinion
Borochoff v. Fowler
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided September 26, 1958No. 37286PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Carlisle, Judge.
The first contention of the plaintiffs in error is that the petition as finally amended affirmatively shows that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for the alleged injuries is under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Code, Ann., § 114-101, et seq.). This contention is based on the further contention that the petition when construed against the plaintiff, as must be done on general demurrer, affirmatively shows that the defendant corporation has 10 or more persons in its employ, and that under the provisions of that act the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for any…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Moore v. Dublin Cotton MillsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Southern Cotton-Oil Co. v. GladmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Echols v. Chattooga Mercantile CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
- Bush v. West Yellow Pine Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- International Cotton Mills v. WebbCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Holland v. Sanfax CorporationCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- Southern Wire & Iron, Inc. v. FowlerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1962
- Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers Mutual Casualty Insurance v. HillCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- CINCINNATI, NO &C. R. CO. v. HilleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
- J. P. (Pat) Webb v. Standard Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.