Legal Opinion
Hastings v. Hancock
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Decided February 6, 1991No. Civ. 7845PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Following a hearing in which the employee, Jimmy Hastings, was awarded workmen's compensation benefits, he moved for an amended judgment, requesting double compensation pursuant to § 25-5-8(e), Code 1975.
That code section provides:
"Penalties for failure to secure payment of compensation; injunctions. — Any employer required to secure . . . compensation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $1,000. In addition thereto, any employer required to secure the payment of compensation under this section who fails…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mobile Liners, Inc. v. McConnellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Rush v. HeflinCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1982
- Johnson v. City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1985
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ex Parte RuggsSupreme Court of Alabama · 2008
- Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. v. RuggsCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2008
- Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. CaseyCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1992
- State ex rel. Bivins v. BivinsCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1992
- MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. v. RuggsSupreme Court of Alabama · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.