Legal Opinion
Thomas v. Ford Motor Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided December 22, 1925No. 16523PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRiley, J.
Guy Turner prosecutes this proceeding for a review of an o,rder of the State Industrial Commission made on May 27, 1925, denying an award of compensation to> him as claimant.
The first contention of claimant is that he contracted lead poisoning and painter’s colic-while in the employ of respondent, and that ■the same is an accident within the meaning of the Compensation Act of the state of Oklahoma, and that the Industrial Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters to order compensation paid to the claimant for disability received by him.
The .Commission found:
“That claimant did…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Choctaw Portland Cement Co. v. LambSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
- St. Louis Mining & Smelting Co. v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
- Booth & Flinn, Ltd. v. CookSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
- Winona Oil Co. v. SmithsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
- Board of Com'rs, Cleveland Co. v. BarrSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. BriscoeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951
- Oklahoma-Arkansas Tel. Co. v. FriesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- White Oak Refining Co. v. WhiteheadSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- United States Gypsum Co. v. McMichaelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
- Cannella v. Gulf Refining Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1934
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.