Legal Opinion

Holman v. Oriental Refinery

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided March 22, 1965No. 7537PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MOISE, Justice.

Appellants, employer and insurer, hereinafter collectively called “employer” present three points relied on for reversal of a judgment granting recovery to appelleeemployee based on 30% disability under the New Mexico Occupational Disease Disablement Law (§§ 59-11-1 to 59-11-42, N.M. S.A.1953). They are:

1. That the act is sui generis, and that the rules of civil procedure are not applicable to actions brought thereunder. The specific question has to do with whether Rule 15(c) (§ 21-1-1(15) (c) N.M.S.A. 1953), dealing with relation back of amended pleadings, is applicable.

2.…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Hartmann v. Time, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
  2. Honeycutt v. Carolina Asbestos Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  3. Wright v. National Surety Corp.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1952
  4. Barthel v. StammCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1944
  5. Hartmann v. Time, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1946

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Durrett v. PetritsisNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Zoss v. United Building Centers, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Bagwell v. Shady Grove Truck StopNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. Malone v. Swift Fresh Meats Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Salazar v. Kaiser Steel CorporationNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1973

15 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