Legal Opinion
AMF Tubescope Company v. Hatchel
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided February 3, 1976No. 47557PublishedCited by 104 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BARNES, Justice:
Respondent, Don Edwin Hatchel (hereafter Claimant), was awarded compensation for permanent partial disability to body as a whole from silicosis contracted during employment with AMF Tubescope Company (hereafter AMF). This award, affirmed by State Industrial Court en banc, is presented for review by Petitioners (herein the Respondents).
Claimant was employed by AMF August 16, 1966, and continued until terminating for better employment April 11, 1971. During this period AMF carried the following insurance coverage: Maryland Casualty Company (hereafter Maryland) from 1966 to April…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Eason Oil Company v. Corporation CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1975
- In Re Guardianship of CampbellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1966
- Wade v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1973
- Independent School District No. JI-69 v. Independent School District No. D-45Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
- Blackwell Zinc Company v. ParkerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1965
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by104 opinions
- TXO Production Corp. v. Oklahoma Corp. CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- Grand River Dam Authority v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
- Oliver v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
- Clifton v. CliftonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
- Rodgers v. HigginsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
99 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.