Legal Opinion

McCammon v. Neubert

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 1983PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

The sole determinative issue in this worker’s compensation appeal is whether the chancellor erred in finding that plaintiff’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.

Plaintiff, McCammon, was employed on an hourly basis by defendant, Joe Neubert, d/b/a Neubert’s Paint and Body Shop, as a *703painter s helper and errand boy. On February 15, 1980, plaintiff brought his lunch to work from home, yet around mid-day, at the request of his fellow employees, plaintiff got into his car and drove approximately one mile to a drive-in market to obtain their lunch. After placing their…

3Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hudson v. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Lennon Company v. RidgeTennessee Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Kelley v. 3-M CO.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1982
  4. CNA Insurance Co. v. N. L. TransouTennessee Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Smith v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1977

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by4 opinions

  1. Shinn v. General Binding Corp., Koelling Metals DivisionMissouri Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. Loy v. North Bros. Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Morrison v. General Accident Insurance Co. of AmericaTennessee Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Rogers v. William Morris Agency, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API