Legal Opinion

Sillix v. Armour & Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 6, 1917No. 20,391PublishedCited by 3 opinions

OPINION DENYING A REHEARING. Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 3; Hugh J. Smith, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.:

It is insisted a rehearing should be granted on the ground that the law declared in the first paragraph of the syllabus is manifestly based upon the assumption of two facts, first, that defendant offered to pay plaintiff, one-half his average earnings only “until he was able to come back to work,” and second, that a dispute existed as to whether plaintiff’s disability was permanent or only temporary; and it is contended the record contains no evidence upon which to base either assumption. It is also contended that the court misunderstood…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Sillix v. Armour & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1916

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. T. J. Dye & Son v. NicholsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. Grasselli Chemical Co. v. SimonIndiana Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Levinsky v. Westren Coal & Mining Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1924

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API