Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tibbs-Dorsey Mfg. Co. v. State Industrial Com.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 17, 1931No. 21428Published

1DissentSwindall, J.

I cannot agree with the majority opinion. In order to arrive at the intent of the Legislature in enacting the proviso to section 7325, C. O. S. 1921, I deem it advisable to discuss the history of the legislation under consideration. Section 14, art. 4, c. 246, Session Laws 1915, provides that:

“The power and jurisdiction of the Commission over each case shall be continuing, and it may, from time to time, make such modification or change with respect to former findings or orders relating thereto, as in its opinion may -be just, including the right to require physical examination as provided for…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Choctaw Portland Cement Co. v. LambSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
  2. Marland Production Co. v. HoganSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
  3. Protest of Chicago, R, I. & P. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
  4. Kelly v. RoetzelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
  5. Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. WoodworthSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923

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

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

Powered by the Exa API