Legal Opinion
Stidham v. Special Indemnity Fund
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided May 2, 2000No. 89,602PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPALA, J.:
1 1 The question before the court is whether there was error in the trial tribunal's refusal to commute to a lump sum certain accrued and unpaid installments under an earlier award against the Special Indemnity Fund. For the reasons to be stated we answer in the negative.
I
ANATOMY OF LITIGATION
T2 Bobby B. Stidham [claimant], who was a physically impaired person with a preexisting impairment (blindness in the left eye), sustained a work-related injury to his right eye on 15 June 1995. His claim for that injury was settled by joint petition on 12 February 1996. He then brought a…
2Cases cited55 opinions
- Windsor v. McVeighSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Pettis v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
- Chamberlin v. ChamberlinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1986
- United States Ex Rel. Wilson v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Mayhue v. MayhueSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Samman v. Multiple Injury Trust FundSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2001
- State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. MothershedSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011
- Jackson v. JacksonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2002
- BALL v. MULTIPLE INJURY TRUST FUNDSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2015
- Multiple Injury Trust Fund v. PullumSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2001
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.