Legal Opinion

Smith v. State Industrial Accident Commission

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 1922PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcBRIDE, J.

We are of the opinion that an appeal does not lie from the action of the commission in designating a physician and hospital for an injured workman, and that it was erroneous to submit to the jury the question raised on the trial. .From special proceedings of this character appeal will not lie, unless granted by the express terms of the statute or by necessary implication: Town of Lafayette v. Clark, 9 Or. 225; Kearney v. Snodgrass, 12 Or. 311 (7 Pac. 309); Fisk v. Henarie, 15 Or. 89 (13 Pac. 760); State v. Security Sav. Co., 28 Or. 410 (43 Pac. 160); Portland, v. Nottingham, 58 Or. 1 (112…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kearney v. SnodgrassOregon Supreme Court · 1885
  2. City of Portland v. NottinghamOregon Supreme Court · 1911
  3. State v. Security Savings Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Fisk v. HenarieOregon Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Town of La Fayette v. ClarkOregon Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Chebot v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Butterfield v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Rohde v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Liimatainen v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Reynaga v. Northwest Farm BureauOregon Supreme Court · 1985

5 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