Stringtown Crushed Rock Co. v. State Industrial Commission

1927 OK 480, 261 P. 941, 128 Okla. 188, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 414
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedDecember 13, 1927
Docket18399
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 1927 OK 480 (Stringtown Crushed Rock Co. v. State Industrial Commission) 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
Stringtown Crushed Rock Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 1927 OK 480, 261 P. 941, 128 Okla. 188, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 414 (Okla. 1927).

Opinion

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.

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

Related

Warr Lumber Co. v. Henry
1941 OK 129 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1941)
Diamond Ice Co. v. Seitz
1940 OK 359 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1940)
Harris Meat & Produce Co. v. Brown
1936 OK 460 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
Myers Mining & Milling Co. v. Tennant
1935 OK 900 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
City of Tulsa Water Department v. Barnes
1935 OK 174 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Southland Cotton Oil Co. v. Pritchett
1933 OK 662 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Industrial Commission
26 P.2d 1012 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1933)
City of Muskogee v. McMurry
1932 OK 71 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Bates
1931 OK 485 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Greenlee
1931 OK 312 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Earl W. Baker & Co. v. Holcomb
1931 OK 83 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Watts
1931 OK 54 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Tahona Smokeless Coal Co. v. State Industrial Commission
1928 OK 727 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Thrash v. Graver Corporation
1928 OK 444 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1927 OK 480, 261 P. 941, 128 Okla. 188, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stringtown-crushed-rock-co-v-state-industrial-commission-okla-1927.