Duck v. Liberty Mills, Inc.

Mississippi Supreme Court

Duck v. Liberty Mills, Inc.

149 So. 2d 849, 246 Miss. 434, 1963 Miss. LEXIS 460

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided February 18, 1963·No. No. 42589·Published

Opinion

Gillespie, J.

(Hn 1) The attorney-referee, the full commission, and the circuit court all denied compensation to appellant. The question was one of fact whether appellant sustained her injuries on the- job o.r elsewhere. The testimony was in conflict and there was substantial evidence to support the commission’s finding against claimant. The [436]*436substantial evidence rule has been stated and applied so many times, as evidenced by tbe long list of cases cited in Dnnn’s Workmen’s Compensation, Sec. 179, 1963 Cumulative Supplement, that further illustration of tbe. rule is not needed. Tbe order of tbe commission is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McGehee, G. J., and Ethridge, Rodgers and Jones, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gillespie, J.

(Hn 1) The attorney-referee, the full commission, and the circuit court all denied compensation to appellant. The question was one of fact whether appellant sustained her injuries on the- job o.r elsewhere. The testimony was in conflict and there was substantial evidence to support the commission’s finding against claimant. The [436]*436substantial evidence rule has been stated and applied so many times, as evidenced by tbe long list of cases cited in Dnnn’s Workmen’s Compensation, Sec. 179, 1963 Cumulative Supplement, that further illustration of tbe. rule is not needed. Tbe order of tbe commission is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McGehee, G. J., and Ethridge, Rodgers and Jones, JJ., concur.

Duck v. Liberty Mills, Inc., 149 So. 2d 849, 246 Miss. 434, 1963 Miss. LEXIS 460 (Mich. 1963).

Pincite

149 So. 2d 849 (Duck v. Liberty Mills, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.