Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co.

759 S.W.2d 792, 297 Ark. 24, 1988 Ark. LEXIS 437

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 7, 1988

Docket88-168

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 759 S.W.2d 792 (Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 759 S.W.2d 792, 297 Ark. 24, 1988 Ark. LEXIS 437 (Ark. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

This case was before us last year. We remanded it to the court of appeals to decide the constitutionality of the time limitation placed on filing a workers’ compensation disability claim when disability results from silicosis. Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 293 Ark. 499, 739 S.W.2d 161 (1987) . The court of appeals held that the appellant’s proof was not sufficient to show that the limitations period violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the U. S. Constitution. Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 25 Ark. App. 66, 752 S.W.2d 288 (1988).

Again we were asked to review the decision of the court of appeals, and we granted the petition. Upon further study, we have determined that review was improvidently granted.

Review denied.

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

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

This case was before us last year. We remanded it to the court of appeals to decide the constitutionality of the time limitation placed on filing a workers’ compensation disability claim when disability results from silicosis. Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 293 Ark. 499, 739 S.W.2d 161 (1987) . The court of appeals held that the appellant’s proof was not sufficient to show that the limitations period violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the U. S. Constitution. Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co., 25 Ark. App. 66, 752 S.W.2d 288 (1988).

Again we were asked to review the decision of the court of appeals, and we granted the petition. Upon further study, we have determined that review was improvidently granted.

Review denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

759 S.W.2d 792, 297 Ark. 24, 1988 Ark. LEXIS 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-jeffrey-stone-co-ark-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack