Legal Opinion

Jones v. General Motors Corp.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1945No. Docket No. 24, Calendar No. 42,863PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBushnell, J.

For the main, facts in the instant case, we refer to Watts v. General Motors Corporation, 308 Mich. 499, wherein we held that Mrs. Winifred Watts, alleged widow of the late Senica Watts, by. virtue of a common-law marriage, was not entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits, inasmuch as at the time he married and lived with her he was not legally divorced from Mabel Ruth Watts Jones-of Memphis, Tenn. We remanded the case to the department of labor and industry for the determination of whether Mabel Ruth Watts Jones was entitled to compensation. The statute, 2 Comp. Laws 1929, §8422 (Staifc.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Smith v. North Memphis Savings BankTennessee Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Hess v. PettigrewMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Hale v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1942
  4. People v. LewisMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Watts v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1944

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Carner v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1953
  2. In Re Leonard EstateMichigan Court of Appeals · 1973
  3. Braymer v. Overton Machine Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Magwood v. ClarkMichigan Court of Appeals · 1973
  5. Carner v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API