Legal Opinion

Crowder v. Woodward Iron Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided February 14, 1924No. 6 Div. 978PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBouldin, J.

This proceeding under the Workmen’s Compensation Law is prosecuted jointly by the dependent father and mother of a deceased employee.

The point is raised that under section 14, subsecs. (3) and (3A), Acts 1919, p. 218, compensation must be paid to dependents “in the order named,” that the mother is named • before the father, and for this reason compensation must go to the mother only, especially where the minimum fixed by statute is allowed. This contention misconceives the effect of the above provisions of the statute,

Subsection (12) of the same section reads:

“If the deceased employee leave…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Woodward Iron Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
  2. Greek v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1922
  3. State ex rel. Ernest Fleckenstein Brewing Co. v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
  4. Milwaukee Basket Co. v. WieckiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Crosby v. Nunnally Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1923

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Mobile Liners, Inc. v. McConnellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  2. American Tennis Courts, Inc. v. HintonCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1979
  3. Hardisty v. Woodward Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  4. West Point Manufacturing Co. v. BennettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
  5. Ross v. Industrial Accident BoardMontana Supreme Court · 1938

13 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