McKinstry v. Guy Coal Co.
Supreme Court of Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Marshall, J.:
This action is one to recover under the workmen’s compensation act. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the maximum amount allowed for total disability, and the defendant appeals.
*1931. The first proposition contended for is that the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant within the meaning of the workmen’s compensation act. The defendant was operating a coal mine in Cherokee county. The plaintiff with his boy was digging coal for the defendant at sixty cents for each mine car of coal produced. The plaintiff furnished…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pottorff v. Fidelity Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1912
- Learned v. Learned GardenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Maughlelle v. PriceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
- Farmer v. PurcellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1921
- Klapper v. J. R. Burnett Coal & Mining Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1920
3Cited by36 opinions
- Hillen v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Bowen v. Gradison Construction CompanyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930
- Industrial Commission v. BonfilsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1925
- Shay v. HillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1931
- Crowder v. HaymakerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1935
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.