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

  1. Mobile Liners, Inc. v. McConnellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
  2. Rush v. HeflinCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1982
  3. Johnson v. City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1985

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Ex Parte RuggsSupreme Court of Alabama · 2008
  2. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. v. RuggsCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2008
  3. Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. CaseyCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1992
  4. State ex rel. Bivins v. BivinsCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1992
  5. MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. v. RuggsSupreme Court of Alabama · 2008

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