Legal Opinion
Canida v. Technotherm Corp.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided October 31, 2000No. 91,848PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSummers, C.J.
T1 First the trial judge and then a three-judge panel determined that a Workers' Compensation claimant was not entitled to recover for his injury because it was the result of his voluntary participation in horseplay in the workplace. Our sole issue on certiorari is whether that decision is supported by competent evidence of record. We find that it is, and vacate the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals holding otherwise.
12 The claimant, Curtis Canida, sought worker's compensation disability for injury to his back, allegedly suffered when a co-worker forcefully bumped him on the upper back as…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Parks v. Norman Municipal HospitalSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1984
- Owings v. Pool Well ServiceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- State v. ValeraHawaii Supreme Court · 1993
- Lanman v. Oklahoma County Sheriff's OfficeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1998
- Horn v. Broadway GarageSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- HAC, INC. v. BoxSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010
- HOBBY LOBBY v. ROBERTSCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2015
- Baker Ex Rel. Baker v. Saint Francis HospitalSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
- Baker Ex Rel. Baker v. Saint Francis HospitalSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
- Milligan v. Milo Gordon Chrysler Plymouth IsuzuCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.