Legal Opinion

Duncan v. City of Charlotte

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided July 17, 1951No. 530PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

Since the enactment of the Workmen’s Compensation Act in 1929, no rule has proved more essential to its sound and orderly administration than the one which requires that an injury to be com-pensable must be shown to have resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. Brown v. Aluminum Co., 224 N.C. 766, 32 S.E. 2d 320; Wilson v. Mooresville, 222 N.C. 283, 22 S.E. 2d 907; Neely v. Statesville, 212 N.C. 365, 193 S.E. 664; and Rewis v. Ins. Co., 226 N.C. 325, 38 S.E. 2d 97; G.S. 97-2 (f). This principle has come to be known and referred to as the rule of causal…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. State v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. Conrad v. Cook-Lewis Foundry Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  3. Vause v. Vause Farm Equipment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  4. Rewis v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  5. Simonton v. . LanierSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Booker v. Duke Medical CenterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings YarnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Hansel v. Sherman TextilesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  4. Morrison v. Burlington IndustriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  5. Perry v. American Bakeries CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

38 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