Legal Opinion
Grant v. Neal
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided July 13, 1964No. 50385PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PRITCHARD, Commissioner.
Mazie Grant, the respondent, claimed and was allowed compensation by the Industrial Commission from the Second Injury Fund, § 287.220 (all statutory references are to RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., unless otherwise indicated), for disability resulting from an injury to her left hand suffered during the course of her employment with the Beauty Steak Company of Joplin, Missouri. Previously her right hand had been .injured in approximately the same manner and for which compensation was paid. The appellant, State Treasurer and custodian of the Second Injury Fund, resisted…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Corp. v. Joplin Cement CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1960
- Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Blew v. ConnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1959
- Industrial Accident Board v. GuidryTexas Supreme Court · 1961
- State, Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Industrial Acc. Com.California Court of Appeal · 1957
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Merriman v. Ben Gutman Truck Service, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1965
- Meilves v. MorrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
- Stewart v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1966
- Cole v. MorrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1966
- Elrod v. Treasurer of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury FundSupreme Court of Missouri · 2004
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.