Legal Opinion

Lee Ex Rel. Lee v. Chemical Constraction Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 27, 1931PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBbogdeN, J.

Was the plaintiff precluded by the Compensation Act of Tennessee from instituting and maintaining an action for damages in the courts of North Carolina?

In Johnson v. R. R., 191 N. C., 75, 131 S. E., 390, this Court held that the Compensation Act of Tennessee did not exclude a citizen .of this State from maintaining in our courts an action for damages for personal injury resulting from actionable negligence. The Court said: “To hold that a citizen of this State, under such circumstances, had no remedy, except that provided by the Tennessee Compensation Act in force in the State in which he was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Johnson v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Jonathan Woodner Co. v. MatherCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1954
  2. Johnson v. CatlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. Reaves v. Earle-Chesterfield Mill Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API