Legal Opinion
Markham v. Hettrick Manufacturing Co.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided June 3, 1948No. 17,742PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFlanagan, J.
A demurrer was sustained to appellant’s complaint on the ground that her action was one under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The complaint alleges facts which clearly bring the case within the provisions of the Compensation Act. But appellant contends that where there is a violation of the Factory Act the employer should not be given the benefit of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The rule has been firmly established by decisions of both this court and the Supreme Court that in the absence of a rejection of the Workmen’s Compensation Act by employee or employer, where a case comes within the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Seaton v. United States Rubber Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1945
- Harshman v. Union City Body Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1938
- Runion v. Indiana Glass Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1938
- Vogel v. WilliamsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1948
3Cited by4 opinions
- Constance Kottis, as Administratrix of the Estate of Christos Kottis v. United States Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
- Allen v. Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1952
- Vogel v. WilliamsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1948
- Brewington v. Radio Corp.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1962