Maryland Casualty Company v. Kravig
Supreme Court of Colorado
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Day.
This is a workmen’s compensation case. We will refer to the parties as “employer,” “claimant” and “Commission.”
Claimant was granted three hearings. At the first hearing the claimant, a witness who was at or near him at the time he claims to have been “hurt,” and a relative all testified. The referee then continued the matter to a second hearing, at which was taken the testimony of two doctors who saw claimant immediately after the incident forming the basis of this claim. On this evidence, details of which will be later discussed with more particularity, the referee…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Industrial Commission v. Plains Utility Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1953
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1950
- Deines Bros. v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1952
- Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1917
- Baeza v. Remington Arms Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1950
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- People v. RamirezSupreme Court of Colorado · 2007
- Daugaard v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1971
- Hoover v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1964
- SERVICE SUPPLY COMPANY v. VallejosSupreme Court of Colorado · 1969
- Mendisco & Urralbura Mining Co. v. JohnsonColorado Court of Appeals · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.