Legal Opinion

Ross v. Austin Drilling Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 6, 1930No. 29,570PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This is an action on a contract to recover for medical services. The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiffs’ evidence, and they have appealed.

The record discloses that Earl Armstrong was an employee of the defendant, the Austin Drilling Company, and both were operat*825ing under the workmen’s compensation act. While so engaged he sustained severe personal injury which, from the record, we assume was compensable under the act. He was taken to a hospital, and the plaintiff, Doctor Ross, was called to treat him. Mr. Austin was there and…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Spicer v. . WilliamsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  2. Moeser v. ShunkSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924
  3. Wilson Drilling Co. v. BeyerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
  4. Noer v. G. W. Jones Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Johnson v. Ismert-Hincke Milling Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1924

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Workman v. Kansas City Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1936
  2. Baker v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1937
  3. Dean v. Hodges Bros.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1950
  4. St. Mary's Hospital & Training School for Nurses of Sisters of Misericordia v. Atlas Warehouse & Cold Storage Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Weakley County Hospital v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1937

2 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