Legal Opinion

Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company v. Vines

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided September 4, 1973PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FONES, Justice.

The parties will be referred to herein as they appeared in the lower court; that is, William Eugene Vines, defendant in error, as plaintiff, and Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company, plaintiff in error, as defendant.

Defendant appeals from an award of 40% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole and a finding that the one-year statute of limitations began to run from the date that a neurosurgeon diagnosed a ruptured disc, rather than the date of the last compensable injury. Other issues raised are that the findings of fact must be disregarded because neither party…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Bass v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Tennessee Central Railroad v. VanhoyTennessee Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Hinton v. Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Craddock's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  5. Imperial Shirt Corporation v. JenkinsTennessee Supreme Court · 1966

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. MaxCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 1986
  2. Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc. v. Steven RatliffTennessee Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Norton Co. v. CoffinTennessee Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Union Carbide Corp., Food Products Division v. CannonTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Reed v. Genesco, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1974

7 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