TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stringtown Crushed Rock Co. v. State Industrial Commission

STRINGTOWN CRUSHED ROCK CO. Et Al, v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Et Al.

Stringtown Crushed Rock Co. v. State Indus. Comm'n, 1927 OK 480, 261 P. 941
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 13, 1927
Docket
No. 18399
Judges
Hunt, Phelps
Citations
261 P. 9411927 OK 480128 Okla. 1881927 Okla. LEXIS 414
Cited by 14

Opinion of the Court — Hunt

HUNT, J.

This is an original proceeding-in this court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission. Same was filed herein on June 4, 1927, and no briefs have been filed by petitioners though the time allowed within which to do so has long since expired. The grounds upon which petitioners seek to have the award herein reviewed and set aside is that same are contrary both to the law and the evidence and there is no evidence to sustain the findings of the Commission and no finding of fact by the Commission on which to base its award. We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the testimony taken before the Commission at the hearing conducted by the chairman of the Commission in McAlester, Okla., on April 11. 1927, and upon which testimony the order of May 6, 1927, awarding compensation herein was based, and we are clearly of the opinion there is ample testimony to support the finding of the Commission.

It does not appear from the record herein that any errors of law are presented, and petitioners having failed to file brief herein. no question of law is presented for determination. It is well settled that only errors of law will be considered in reviewing awards made by the Industrial Commission, and if there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the award, same will not be disturbed. Glasco v. State Industrial Com., 120 Okla. 37 , 250 Pac. 138 ; Thomas v. Ford Motor Co., 114 Okla. 3 , 242 Pac. 765 .

Having found from our examination of the record that the findings or the Commission are amply supported by the testimony, and no errors of law being presented for review, it follows that the prayer of petitioner herein must 'be denied, and it is so ordered.

All the Justices concur, except PHELPS, J., absent and not participating.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1928: 21931: 41932: 11933: 21935: 21936: 11940: 11941: 119282026peak 1931 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Industrial Commission26 P.2d 1012 (Ariz. 1933)
  2. Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Greenlee1931 OK 312, 300 P. 684
  3. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Watts1931 OK 54, 296 P. 977
  4. Southland Cotton Oil Co. v. Pritchett1933 OK 662, 27 P.2d 819
  5. Harris Meat & Produce Co. v. Brown1936 OK 460, 59 P.2d 280
  6. Diamond Ice Co. v. Seitz1940 OK 359, 105 P.2d 784

Most recent

  1. Warr Lumber Co. v. Henry1941 OK 129, 112 P.2d 358
  2. Diamond Ice Co. v. Seitz1940 OK 359, 105 P.2d 784
  3. Harris Meat & Produce Co. v. Brown1936 OK 460, 59 P.2d 280
  4. Myers Mining & Milling Co. v. Tennant1935 OK 900, 49 P.2d 706
  5. City of Tulsa Water Department v. Barnes1935 OK 174, 41 P.2d 809
  6. Southland Cotton Oil Co. v. Pritchett1933 OK 662, 27 P.2d 819

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Thomas v. Ford Motor Co., 1925 OK 1030, 242 P. 765 23
Glasgow v. State Indus. Comm'n, 1926 OK 860, 250 P. 138 21

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