Legal Opinion
Voeltz v. John Morrell & Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided June 11, 1997No. NonePublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SABERS, Justice.
[¶ 1.] Workers’ compensation claimant appeals circuit court’s denial of motion for remand after he learned administrative law judge took employment with claimant’s employer four days after issuing opinion adverse to claimant. We reverse.
FACTS
[¶2.] This dispute arises from hearings conducted by the Department of Labor (Department) to determine whether John Mor-rell & Co. (Morrell) was obligated to continue payment of workers’ compensation benefits to Karl Voeltz (Voeltz). The hearings were held November 11, 1993 and April 20, 1994. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jean A Koehler…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Withrow v. LarkinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- In Re Murchison.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Gibson v. BerryhillSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Pepsico, Inc., and Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Honorable Thomas R. McMillen Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
- Van Itallie v. Borough of Franklin LakesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hanig v. City of WinnerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
- Armstrong v. Turner County Board of AdjustmentSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
- Pourier v. South Dakota Department of RevenueSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
- Kirschenman v. Hutchinson County Board of CommissionersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. RichardsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.