Legal Opinion
Hartsell v. THERMOID COMPANY, SOUTHERN DIVISION
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided February 25, 1959No. 236PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMooRE, J.
All appellants concede that plaintiff, claimant, is entitled to compensation benefits as provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The sole question before us is: By whom shall compensation be paid?
The findings of fact to which appellants except are supported by evidence and 'are therefore conclusive and binding. Withers v. Black, 230 N.C. 428, 53 S.E. 2d 668.
Liberty Company seriously contends that there is no evidence to support the finding that claimant was injured by the exposure during the 5 days he worked in January, 1957. There is evidence that he was exposed to inhalation of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Haynes v. . Feldspar Producing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Bye v. Interstate Granite Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Withers v. BlackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. McCormickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
- Motsinger v. PerrymanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Booker v. Duke Medical CenterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Fetner v. Rocky Mount Marble & Granite WorksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
- North Carolina Chiropractic Ass'n v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
- Seguro-Suarez by and Through Connette v. Key Risk Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
- Peeler v. State Highway CommissionCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.