Legal Opinion

Viney v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 29, 1935No. 1416PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HICKMAN, Chief Justice.

This case arose under the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 8306 et seq.). In a nonjury trial recovery was denied the claimant. The trial judge made the following findings of fact: “The court finds that the plaintiff, W. N. Viney, sustained an accidental injury on the 28th day of November, 1932, in the following manner: that the plaintiff lived about 4 miles from the town of Haskell and was engaged during the day working for the Duncan Gin Company and that he had been so engaged since the 20th day of August, 1932, up to the 28th day of November,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. American Indemnity Co. v. DinkinsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
  2. &198tna Life Ins. Co. v. PalmerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
  3. Royalty Indemnity Co. v. MadrigalCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1929
  4. Boatright v. Georgia Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1925
  5. Lloyds Casualty Co. v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Texas Compensation Insurance Co. v. MatthewsTexas Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Republic Underwriters v. TerrellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939
  3. Antilley v. JenningsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1944
  4. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. Of Wisconsin v. KonvickaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1952
  5. Winder v. Consolidated UnderwritersCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1939

11 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