Smith v. Parkersburg Rig & Reel Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Smith v. Parkersburg Rig & Reel Co.

1926 OK 432, 246 P. 614, 117 Okla. 283, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 802

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 11, 1926

Docket16618

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1926 OK 432 (Smith v. Parkersburg Rig & Reel Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Parkersburg Rig & Reel Co., 1926 OK 432, 246 P. 614, 117 Okla. 283, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 802 (Okla. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

ESTES, C.

This is a proceeding to review an order of the State Industrial Commission discontinuing compensation to the petitioner, Albert A. Smith. The only assignment of error presented is that such order of the Commission is “not supported by the evidence, but that on the contrary, the great weight of the evidence shows” that the petitioner was totally and permanently disabled as the result of an injury received in the course of his employment. Consideration of this assignment would require this cdurt to weigh the evidence and determine the preponderance thereof. In fact, it is conceded by petitioner that there is some evidence to support the order of the Commission. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the finding of the Commission on questions of fact, and orders and award made thereon, will not be disturbed on appeal where there is any evidence to. support the same. This rule is applicable to a claimant for compensation, as well as the employer and insurance carrier.

Let the order and award of the Commission be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Note. — See Workmen’s Compensation Acts C. J. p. 122 § 127: anno. L. R. A. 1916A, pp. 178, 266; L. R. A. 1917D. 188; 28 R. C. L. p. 828; 8 R. C. L. Supp. p. 1600; 4 R. C. L. Supp. p. 1872; 5 R. C. L. Supp. p. 1581.

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

Opinion by

ESTES, C.

This is a proceeding to review an order of the State Industrial Commission discontinuing compensation to the petitioner, Albert A. Smith. The only assignment of error presented is that such order of the Commission is “not supported by the evidence, but that on the contrary, the great weight of the evidence shows” that the petitioner was totally and permanently disabled as the result of an injury received in the course of his employment. Consideration of this assignment would require this cdurt to weigh the evidence and determine the preponderance thereof. In fact, it is conceded by petitioner that there is some evidence to support the order of the Commission. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the finding of the Commission on questions of fact, and orders and award made thereon, will not be disturbed on appeal where there is any evidence to. support the same. This rule is applicable to a claimant for compensation, as well as the employer and insurance carrier.

Let the order and award of the Commission be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Note. — See Workmen’s Compensation Acts C. J. p. 122 § 127: anno. L. R. A. 1916A, pp. 178, 266; L. R. A. 1917D. 188; 28 R. C. L. p. 828; 8 R. C. L. Supp. p. 1600; 4 R. C. L. Supp. p. 1872; 5 R. C. L. Supp. p. 1581.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1926 OK 432, 246 P. 614, 117 Okla. 283, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-parkersburg-rig-reel-co-okla-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack