Legal Opinion

Paul v. State Industrial Accident Commission

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 14, 1929PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

There is conflict among the authorities about the law applicable to dependents. The conflict may be accounted for to some degree by the difference in the language of the different statutes. There is a difference between the English statute and the American statutes. The former uses as a standard for determining dependents the financial loss to the dependents. The American authorities generally measure dependency by the amount contributed by decedent and the amount required by the beneficiaries according to their station and condition in life. The result generally of the two methods is the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Powers v. Hotel Bond Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
  2. Gonzales v. Chino Copper Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Harlan v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Milwaukee Basket Co. v. WieckiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Mahoney v. Gamble-Desmond Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1916

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Rosell v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Munger v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Clement v. CummingsOregon Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Hart v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Industrial Commission v. DiNardiSupreme Court of Colorado · 1939

8 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