Inscoe v. DeRose Industries, Inc.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MORRIS, Judge.
Defendants contend that the Full Commission, by ostensibly requiring denial of compensation only in those instances where a claimant’s intoxication was the sole proximate cause of the accident and resulting injuries, erred in concluding that the plaintiff’s accident and injury were not occasioned by his intoxication. Specifically, defendants, arguing that the Full Commission misinterpreted the applicable law, cite the intoxication forfeiture of compensation provision under former G.S. 97-12 and maintained that the “ . . . clear language of the statute indicates that a plaintiff…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Merlo v. Public Service Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1942
- Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. OswaldIllinois Supreme Court · 1930
- De Tienne v. S. N. Nielsen Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1963
- Gay v. S. N. Nielsen Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1958
- Buscaglia v. Owens-Corning FiberglasNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rorie v. Holly Farms Poultry Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- Grammatico v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 2005
- Komalestewa v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- Komalestewa v. ica/stoneville pedigree/wausau InsArizona Supreme Court · 2005
- Rorie v. Holly Farms Poultry Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982