Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sherrill & La Follette v. Herring

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1955No. 5911Published

1DissentUdall, Justice

I am in accord with the majority’s holding that the facts of the case bring the petitioners within the compulsory provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, hence, I agree the commission did have jurisdiction to enter an award. But I do not agree that the commission, without a more detailed finding, was justified in awarding Herring’s dependents “death benefits”.

*339There was one serious conflict in the evidence which the majority appears to consider of no legal significance. Employer Sherrill positively testified that while at home to lunch he talked to Herring in Queen Creek at 1:15 or 1:30…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Moore's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953
  3. English v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Martin v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1953
  5. King v. Alabam's Freight Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1932

3 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