Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Motsinger v. . Perryman
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided June 19, 1940PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSchenck, J.
Claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act prosecuted by plaintiff, the injured employee.
Plaintiff and defendant employer are both bound by the Workmen's Compensation Act. The defendant Associated Indemnity Corporation is the alleged insurance carrier for the employer.
On 9 October, 1937, plaintiff suffered an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment which resulted in a complete loss of the sight of his left eye. The hearing Commissioner awarded compensation. On appeal to the Full Commission the award was affirmed. On appeal to the Superior Court the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Von Hoffman v. City of QuincySupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Holgate Bros. v. BashoreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Durham Provision Co. v. DavesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1934
- Roberta Manufacturing Co. v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- A-S-P Associates v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Carolina-Virginia Coastal Highway v. Coastal Turnpike AuthoritySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Lutz Industries, Inc. v. Dixie Home StoresSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. StateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- In Re Annexation Ordinances Nos. 866-870, Etc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.