Legal Opinion

Cauble v. MacKe Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 21, 1986No. 8510IC777PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendants contend that the Commission erred in its decision to award plaintiff further compensation because the findings and conclusions of the Commission were based on a misapprehension of the law. We agree.

The plenary powers of the Commission are such that upon review, it may adopt, modify or reject the findings of fact of the Hearing Commissioner, and in doing so may weigh the evidence and make its own determination as to the weight and credibility of the evidence. Hollar v. Furniture Co., 48 N.C. App. 489, 269 S.E. 2d 667 (1980). The Industrial Commission has the duty and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hollar v. Montclair Furniture Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  2. Mayo v. City of WashingtonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  3. Rooks v. IDEAL CEMENT COMPANYCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
  4. Mills v. MillsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Ballenger v. ITT Grinnell Industrial Piping, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  2. Jenkins v. Public Service Co. of NCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  3. Carroll v. Burlington IndustriesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  4. Wagoner v. Douglas Battery Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  5. Ballenger v. ITT Grinnell Industrial Piping, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986

24 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