Legal Opinion
Travelers Insurance v. Industrial Commission
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided June 5, 1922No. 10,266PublishedCited by 11 opinions
Action involving the constitutionality of a portion of the workmen’s compensation act relating to insurance. Constitutionality upheld. Error to the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Hon. Henry J. Hersey, Judge.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burke
SUCH is the record before us that, if a portion of section 22 of our Workmen’s Compensation Act (L. 1919 p. 708) is constitutional, the judgment must be affirmed. If unconstitutional reversed. That part of the section reads:
“The Industrial Commission shall from time to time approve and prescribe a standard or universal form, as nearly as possible, for every contract or policy of insurance, endorsement, rider, letter, or other document affecting such contract, for use in insuring the compensation herein provided for.”
Plaintiffs in error say this'is a delegation to the commission of a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Dowling v. Lancashire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- O'Neil v. Am. Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- King v. Concordia Fire-InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1905
- Anderson v. Manchester Fire Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- State ex rel. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Public Service CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Sapero v. State Board of Medical ExaminersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1932
- People ex rel. Setters v. LeeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1923
- In Re Proposed Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1925
- Ainscough v. OwensColorado Court of Appeals · 2003
- Evergreen Investment & Realty Co. v. BacaColorado Court of Appeals · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.