Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Tulsa Street Railway Co. v. Shoemaker

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 3, 1925No. 15138PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

LOGSDON, C.

This proceeding brings to this court a transcript remarkable for the absence of essential proof. The injury for which compensation is claimed occurred May 9, 1922, and the hearing to fix liability and determine extent of disability was -held September 10, 1923. Claimant took the witness stand in his own behalf, and tne following occurred upon -his direct examination:

“Q. You may state your name!. A. Shoemaker, Barney. Q. You are the claimant in this suit, are you, Mr. Shoemaker? A. Yes-sir. Q. Was you working any time during this year for the Tulsa -Street Railway Company?…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hogan v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
  2. Producers' Lumber Co. v. ButlerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
  3. Associated Employers' Reciprocal v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  4. Huttig Lead & Zinc Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  5. Branham v. Carter Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. LewisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  2. Tulsa Rig, Reel & Mfg. Co. v. CaseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  3. Farmers Gin Co. v. CooperSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
  4. Ryan v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
  5. Guthrie Ex Rel. Stack v. Modern Distributors, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1960

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API