Parrish v. Armour & Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtClaeicsoN, J.
The first question involved: Did tbe accident resulting in tbe injury to Ewell C. Parrish, tbe plaintiff, arise out of and in tbe course of bis employment? We think so.
Public Laws 1929, cb. 120, known as tbe North Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act, sec. 2(f), is as follows: “'Injury’ and 'personal injury’ shall mean only injury by accident arising out of and in tbe course of tbe employment, and shall not include a disease in any form except where it results naturally and unavoidably from tbe accident.”
In Davis v. Veneer Corp., ante, at p. 265-6, tbe law is stated: “In order that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wirta v. North Butte Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1922
- Jeffrey v. . Manufacturing CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Taylor v. Hogan Milling Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1929
3Cited by18 opinions
- Guest v. Brenner Iron & Metal CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Fox v. Cramerton Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Murdoch v. Humes SwanstromIdaho Supreme Court · 1931
- Cauble v. Soft-Play, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
- Wesley Ex Rel. Wesley v. LeaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.