Legal Opinion
Marshall v. Ransome Concrete Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 30, 1917No. Civ. No. 1659PublishedCited by 10 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
On the seventh day of March, 1913, at Sacramento, the applicant, F. P. Marshall, was seriously injured by the falling of a concrete tower. He was an employee of the Ransome Concrete Company, and there is no dispute that he became subject to the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Appellant was the insurance carrier, and it paid him sixty-five per cent of his average weekly wages from the eighth day after the injury up to the eleventh day of September, 1914, when appellant concluded that the disability was not more than fifty per cent of total, and it paid compensation at the rate of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pacific Coast Casualty Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Tucker v. United RailroadsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Lesh v. Illinois Steel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Southwestern Surety Insurance Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
3Cited by10 opinions
- Green v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Hamelin v. FoulkesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Flores v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Industrial Accident Commission & McClureCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Zant v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.