Lucky-Kidd Mining Co. v. State Industrial Commission
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
Opinioni by
LOGSDON, C.
This proceeding raises a rather difficult question as to the true meaning and correct interpretation of the clause, "accidental personal injury-sustained toy the employe arising out of and in the course of his employment,” as contained in our Workmen’s Compensation Liny. (Comp. Stat. 1921, sec. 7285.)
Succinctly stated, the facts are: Claimant, for several months prior to the accident, had been in the employment of peti tioner as a hoisterman. His duties required him to stay in the hoisting tower, elevated above the mine shaft entrance ana to operate the hoisting…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Bryant v. FissellSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1913
- Matter of Heitz v. . RuppertNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Archibald v. Workmen's Compensation CommissionerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1916
- State ex rel. Duluth Brewing & Malting Co. v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Stasmos v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Stanolind Pipe Line Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Oklahoma-Arkansas Tel. Co. v. FriesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Farmers Gin Co. v. CooperSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
- Murdoch v. Humes SwanstromIdaho Supreme Court · 1931
- Ryan v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.