Legal Opinion
Runnion v. Speidel
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 11, 1934No. Docket No. 18, Calendar No. 37,866PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBushnell, J.
The only question in this case is that stated in appellant’s brief:
“Is a child, of a former wife, under 16 years of age at the time that its parent is accidentally injured, but over 16 years of age at the time of the death of said parent from said injuries, entitled to the conclusive presumption of dependency under 2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8422?”
The department of labor and industry answered “Yes,” and the appellants contend the answer should be “No.”
Runnion was injured November 28, 1928. He applied for and was granted compensation for 10 weeks’ total disability on March 3, 1931. He filed a…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- King v. Peninsular Portland Cement Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1921
- Finn v. Detroit, Mt. Clemens & Marine City RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Miller v. Riverside Storage & Cartage Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Moll v. City BakeryMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Kalcic v. Newport Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Paige v. City of Sterling HeightsMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
- Murphy v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Paige v. City of Sterling HeightsMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
- Murphy v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Paige v. City of Sterling HeightsMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.