160 Okla. 97

RUSHING v. CARTER OIL CO. et al.

No. 23506.

Opinion Filed Oct. 4, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1932.

Emerson & Carey, for petitioner.

J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., Robt. D. Crowe, Asst. Atty. Gen., James A. Veasey, L. G. Owen, and Eorrest M. Darrough, for respondents.

McNEILL, J.

This is a proceeding to review an order and award of the State Industrial Commission. Attorneys for petitioner introduced their evidence before the Commission in support of their motion for further compensation on the ground of change of condition. The Commission found that the evidence was insufficient, and petitioner seeks to have this judgment reviewed. Suffice it to say that the Commission is the finder of facts. There is competent evidence to support the finding of facts, as made by tbe Commission, that the evidence was insufficient. Affirmed.

LESTER, C. J., CLARK, V. C. J., and RILEY, OULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and KORNEGAY, JJ„ concur. HEENER, J., absent.

Rushing v. Carter Oil Co.
160 Okla. 97

Case Details

Name
Rushing v. Carter Oil Co.
Decision Date
Oct 4, 1932
Citations

160 Okla. 97

Jurisdiction
Oklahoma

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!