Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mehaffey v. Burger King

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 8, 2013No. 24PA12Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Newby

“It is not debatable that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is to be liberally construed to the end that the benefits thereof should not be denied upon technical, narrow and strict interpretation. The rule of liberal construction cannot be used to read into the Act a meaning *129alien to its plain and unmistakable words. We should not overstep the bounds of legislative intent, and make by judicial legislation our Workmen’s Compensation Act an Accident and Health Insurance Act.” Hatchett v. Hitchcock Corp., 240 N.C. 591, 593, 83 S.E.2d 539, 541 (1954) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. . BarksdaleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  2. Young v. WoodallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
  3. Radzisz v. Harley Davidson of Metrolina, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1997
  4. Lee v. . American Enka Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  5. High Rock Lake Partners, LLC v. North Carolina Department of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2012

3 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