TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Vietti v. Crow Coal Co.

VIETTI v. CROW COAL CO. Et Al.

Vietti v. Crow Coal Co., 1926 OK 483, 246 P. 412
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 18, 1926
Docket
No. 17349
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
246 P. 4121926 OK 483114 Okla. 2961926 Okla. LEXIS 1025

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding was begun in tlie Sta'e Industrial Commission. On the 5th day of February, 1926, the Ccmmis,sion made an order discontinuing compensation under. a previous award, to petitioner. On the 4th day of March, 1929, petitioner filed a mobidn to set this order aside, which was clenied on the 15th day of March 1926. On the 26th day of March, 1926, petitioner filed a motion to review the orders of February 5, 1926, and March 15, 1926, on the ground, of changed conditions, and on the 31st day cf March, 1926, this motion was overruled, and on the 24th day of April, 1926, proceedings were begun in this court to review these orders of the Commission.

Becticta 7296, Compiled Oklahoma Statutes 1921, provides as follows:

“Upon its own motion or upon the application df any party in interest, on (he ground of a change in conditions, the Commission may ab any time review any award, and on such review- may make an award ending.

*297 diminishing, or increasing the compensation previously awarded, subject to the maximum or minimum provided in this act, and shall state its conclusions of fact and rulings of law, and shall immediately send 'to the parties a copy of the award. Noi such review shall affect such award as regards any money already paid.”

Under the above section the Commission may of its own moticta, or on application of any interested party, at any time, review an award on the ground of changed conditions, hut this statute does - not authorize the review of an order discontinuing an award on the ground of .changed conditions. The motion filed in the Commission' by petitioner to review its orders was unautlhclrized. and does not in any way affect the time for beginning proceedings in this court, and proceedings not having been begun within SO days after notice to the parties cf the order discontinuing the award, the proceedings will be dismissed. Dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1939: 119392026peak 1939 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pioneer Mills Co. v. Webster1939 OK 523, 99 P.2d 507

Most recent

  1. Pioneer Mills Co. v. Webster1939 OK 523, 99 P.2d 507

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list