Legal Opinion

Insurors Indemnity & Insurance v. Pridgen

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 20, 1949No. A-2125PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Garwood

*221The only question for determination in this proceeding is which one or more of three Workmen’s Compensation Insurance carriers, parties hereto, must respond for benefits concededly due under the statute to Mrs. Minnie Pridgen (the remaining party) as a result of the electrocution of her son, Walter Lee Pridgen, in the course of his employment in a position variously described as “helper, swamper or oiler” of a dragline. The latter is evidently a mobile apparatus which can dig, lift, and perform sundry other useful functions of heavy work by its own motive power and the deceased was the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Shannon v. Western Indemnity Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1924
  2. Matter of De Noyer v. . CavanaughNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  3. Hilgenberg v. ElamTexas Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Maryland Casualty Co. v. DonnellyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1932
  5. Insurors Indemnity & Ins. Co. v. PridgenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1949

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Producers Chemical Company v. McKayTexas Supreme Court · 1963
  2. J. A. Robinson Sons, Inc. v. WigartTexas Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Brown v. Aztec Rig Equipment, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1996
  4. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. PaulkCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1950
  5. Weaver v. BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

32 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