Legal Opinion

Aluminum Co. of America v. Henning

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 29, 1976No. 76-170PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

John A. Fogleman, Justice.

Appellant-employer contends that appellee-claimant’s workmen’s compensation claim cannot be considered as having been controverted under the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and, for that reason, it has no liability for fees for appellee Henning’s attorney. The basis for this contention is that appellant, within the time allowed it after the claim was filed with the commission, advised the secretary of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission the claim would not be controverted. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the commission’s finding that the…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. McCraySupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. ShaneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  3. Lundell v. WalkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
  4. International Paper Company v. TidwellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971
  5. Arkansas Insurance v. McManusSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908

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

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. Jeter v. B.R. McGinty MechanicalCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1998
  2. Harvest Foods v. WashamCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1996
  3. Lee v. Alcoa Extrusion, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2005
  4. Logan County v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2005
  5. Purdy v. LivingstonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1977

40 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