Duncan v. City of Charlotte
Supreme Court of North Carolina
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
- State v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Conrad v. Cook-Lewis Foundry Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Vause v. Vause Farm Equipment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Rewis v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- Simonton v. . LanierSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Booker v. Duke Medical CenterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Rutledge v. Tultex Corp./Kings YarnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- Hansel v. Sherman TextilesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- Morrison v. Burlington IndustriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- Perry v. American Bakeries CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.