Greenville Mills, Inc. v. Shields

Mississippi Supreme Court

Greenville Mills, Inc. v. Shields

187 So. 2d 328, 1966 Miss. LEXIS 1351

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedJune 6, 1966

DocketNo. 44029

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 So. 2d 328 (Greenville Mills, Inc. v. Shields) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greenville Mills, Inc. v. Shields, 187 So. 2d 328, 1966 Miss. LEXIS 1351 (Mich. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice:

The sole question on direct appeal is whether the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission that claimant sustained an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment, was based on substantial evidence. It was. The sole question on cross-appeal concerns the Commission’s finding as to the extent of loss of wage earning capacity, and we find that the Commission’s order on this question was based on substantial evidence. In the proper exercise of this Court’s power of review, we find no grounds for reversal of the circuit court’s judgment affirming the award made by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

The motion for additional attorney’s fee by claimant’s counsel is sustained.

Motion for attorney’s fee sustained; affirmed on direct and cross-appeals and remanded to the Commission.

PATTERSON, INZER, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.

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

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice:

The sole question on direct appeal is whether the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission that claimant sustained an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment, was based on substantial evidence. It was. The sole question on cross-appeal concerns the Commission’s finding as to the extent of loss of wage earning capacity, and we find that the Commission’s order on this question was based on substantial evidence. In the proper exercise of this Court’s power of review, we find no grounds for reversal of the circuit court’s judgment affirming the award made by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

The motion for additional attorney’s fee by claimant’s counsel is sustained.

Motion for attorney’s fee sustained; affirmed on direct and cross-appeals and remanded to the Commission.

PATTERSON, INZER, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 So. 2d 328, 1966 Miss. LEXIS 1351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenville-mills-inc-v-shields-miss-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack