Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Continental Casualty Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 30, 1932No. 30,149PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*456The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This is an action on an insurance policy issued under the workmen’s compensation law. The employer is not a party defendant. The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s petition, and he has appealed.

Briefly, the petition alleges that in January, 1929, plaintiff was a laborer in the employ of W. O. Cook, doing business as the Cook Construction Company; that plaintiff and his employer were operating under the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act; that the defendant herein, the Continental Casualty Company, was the employer’s…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Norman v. Consolidated Cement Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1929
  2. Robertson v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1927
  3. Murphy v. W. O. Cook Construction Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1930
  4. Walker v. Kansas Gasoline Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1930
  5. Iott v. Continental Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1930

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. MatlockSupreme Court of Kansas · 1940
  2. S.H. Kress Co. v. Superior Court of Maricopa CountyArizona Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Standard Surety & Casualty Co. of New York v. Standard Acc. Ins.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1939
  4. Yocum v. Phillips Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1980
  5. Davidson v. Hobart Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1981

6 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