Clifford v. Eacrett
Supreme Court of Kansas
1DissentBurch, J.
The result reached “-runs riot” with my reasoning. Although I have sincere respect for the legal logic in the majority opinion, I cannot conclude that the legislature intended to permit employees operating under the workmen’s compensation act, and their dependents, to recover a larger amount of damages than any other class of people in the state. If I comprehend correctly the court’s opinion, it must follow- by analogy therefrom that at-the time the accident occurred a widow of a workman could have recovered in a common-law action damages in the amount of $10,000 (G. S. 1935, 60-3203, later…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Oates v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Constitutional Prohibitory AmendmentSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Murray's Lessee v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1818
- City of Emporia v. NortonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
- State ex rel. Schenck v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.