Legal Opinion

Woodward Iron Co. v. Jones

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 29, 1928No. 6 Div. 14PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.

Counsel’s argument for appellant for mandamus is not persuasive under the statutory system for review. Section 7571, Code.

It is established that this court will not look to a bill qf exceptions to ascertain the weight or preponderance of the evidence on a given material fact under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Code 1928, §§ 7534-7597). If there is any legal evidence on any reasonable view, or reasonable inference therefrom, that supports the facts found and conclusion announced by the court, it is sufficient under the statute, and the judgment rendered will not be disturbed. Ex parte…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Bailey v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  2. Greek v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1922
  3. Ex Parte Louisville N. R. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1922
  4. Ex Parte ColemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  5. Martin v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1927

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Read News Agency, Inc. v. MomanCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1980
  2. Carroll Const. Co., Inc. v. HutchesonCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1977
  3. Birson v. Decatur Transfer and Storage, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1960
  4. W. T. Smith Lumber Company v. RainesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1961
  5. Alatex, Inc. v. CouchCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1984

8 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