Legal Opinion
Partee v. Memphis Concrete Pipe Co.
Tennessee Supreme Court
Decided June 11, 1927PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Cook
The widow sued to recover under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Chancellor held that she was not a dependent because living apart from her husband. Chapter 12-3, Acts of 1919, Section 30' provides:
“That for the purposes of the Act the following described persons shall be conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent; (1) á wife, unless it be shown that she was.voluntarily living apart from her husband at the time of the injury, and . . . children under the age of sixteen years.”
To establish her claim the widow testified to the marriage with Arthur Partee, April 27, 1918, and the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- H. G. Goelitz Co. v. Industrial BoardIllinois Supreme Court · 1917
- State ex rel. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
- State ex rel. George J. Grant Construction Co. v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Johnson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- McCleery v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
3Cited by30 opinions
- Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1939
- Woods v. Harry B. Woods Plumbing Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1998
- City of Lenoir City v. State ex rel. City of LoudonTennessee Supreme Court · 1978
- Ana R. PADILLA v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANYTennessee Supreme Court · 2010
- France v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1939
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.