Mullen v. Mitchell
MULLEN v. MITCHELL Et Al.
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
NICHOLSON, J.
This suit was instituted in this court by the petitioner, seeking a reversal of an order of the State Industrial Commission, awarding to the respondent James L. Mitchell compensation computed from April 11, 1920, at the rate of $18 per week for a period of 100 weeks, or until the total of $1,800 had been paid, for the loss of one eye while in the employ of the petitioner.
The petitioner has failed to file brief' as required ‘by rule 7 of this court (47 Okla. VI), and no reason is given for his failure to file the same, and for this reason the appeal should be dismissed under the authority of Blanlot v. Carbon Coal Co., 76 Okla. 16 , 183 Pac. 880 .
Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the evidence is insufficient to show that the respondent Mitchell, suffered the loss of an eye. The commission found as a fact that he did suffer such loss, and its decision on all questions of fact is final. Section 10, ch. 14, Sess. Laws 1919; Board of Com’rs of Cleveland Co. v. Barr et al., 68 Oklahoma, 173 Pac. 206 ; Choctaw Portland Cement Co. v. Lamb et al., 79 Okla. 109 , 189 Pac. 750 ; Stephenson v. State Industrial Commission et al., 79 Okla. 228 , 192 Pac. 580 ; Raulerson v. State Industrial Commission, 76 Okla. 8 , 183 Pac. 880 .
Therefore, this suit is hereby dismissed.
HARRISON, C. J., and PITOHFORD, MC-NEILL, and ELTING, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.