contention error in Wyoming

1982Hampton v. State, Wyo., 558 P.2d 504 (1977).

1982Hampton v. State, Wyo., 558 P.2d 504 (1977).

2015Even if Mr. Scherf had to exert himself more than usual in opening and closing the panel to access the loader's engine oil on the day in question, while it may have been an employment stress unusual or abnormal for him, the Office is not convinced that it was clearly unusual or abnormal for oilers in this industry. 'This is the reason why Claimant's claim must fail. [123] 'We turn then to our objective test for determining whether Mr. Scherf's exertion was unusual to or abnormal for an oiler, which we apply by comparing Mr. Scherf's specific exertion to the usual exertion of the other employee

1992It is well settled that if a work-related injury causes “insanity”, “brain derangement” (Matter of Delinousha v. National Biscuit Co., 248 N.Y. 93, 94, 96 , 161 N.E. 431 ) or “a pattern of mental deterioration” (Matter of Reinstein v. Mendola, 39 A.D.2d 369, 371 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 488 , aff'd 33 N.Y.2d 589 , 347 N.Y.S.2d 455 , 301 N.E.2d 438 ), which in turn causes suicide, death benefits may be awarded under Worker’s Compensation Law § 10 (* * * 1A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation § 36.40 * * *).

1992It is well settled that if a work-related injury causes “insanity”, “brain derangement” (Matter of Delinousha v. National Biscuit Co., 248 N.Y. 93, 94, 96 , 161 N.E. 431 ) or “a pattern of mental deterioration” (Matter of Reinstein v. Mendola, 39 A.D.2d 369, 371 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 488 , aff'd 33 N.Y.2d 589 , 347 N.Y.S.2d 455 , 301 N.E.2d 438 ), which in turn causes suicide, death benefits may be awarded under Worker’s Compensation Law § 10 (* * * 1A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation § 36.40 * * *).

1992It is well settled that if a work-related injury causes “insanity”, “brain derangement” (Matter of Delinousha v. National Biscuit Co., 248 N.Y. 93, 94, 96 , 161 N.E. 431 ) or “a pattern of mental deterioration” (Matter of Reinstein v. Mendola, 39 A.D.2d 369, 371 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 488 , aff'd 33 N.Y.2d 589 , 347 N.Y.S.2d 455 , 301 N.E.2d 438 ), which in turn causes suicide, death benefits may be awarded under Worker’s Compensation Law § 10 (* * * 1A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation § 36.40 * * *).

1992It is well settled that if a work-related injury causes “insanity”, “brain derangement” (Matter of Delinousha v. National Biscuit Co., 248 N.Y. 93, 94, 96 , 161 N.E. 431 ) or “a pattern of mental deterioration” (Matter of Reinstein v. Mendola, 39 A.D.2d 369, 371 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 488 , aff'd 33 N.Y.2d 589 , 347 N.Y.S.2d 455 , 301 N.E.2d 438 ), which in turn causes suicide, death benefits may be awarded under Worker’s Compensation Law § 10 (* * * 1A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation § 36.40 * * *).

1977Appellant makes sole reliance upon Cutshall v. State, 191 Miss. 764 , 4 So.2d 289 .

1977Appellant makes sole reliance upon Cutshall v. State, 191 Miss. 764 , 4 So.2d 289 .

1977Except as a dismissed high school teacher claimed the right to conduct voir dire examination of members of a school board holding a hearing on the question whether his contract should be renewed, Board of Trustees, Laramie County School District No. 1 v. Spiegel, 549 P.2d 1161 (Wyo.1976), this court does not appear previously to have considered the contention that in a hearing before an administrative board or special committee such as is involved in this case, a party is constitutionally or otherwise entitled to examine the members of the hearing tribunal as to possible bias or prejudice.

1977At the risk of being redundant we reiterate that while the work of the committee, in its investigation, conduct of the hearing, and its recommendations to this court, is very important and an essential function of the disciplinary process, it acts in an advisory capacity and it is this court alone that makes the adjudication. [16] Except as a dismissed high school teacher claimed the right to conduct voir dire examination of members of a school board holding a hearing on the question whether his contract should be renewed, Board of Trustees, Laramie County School District No. 1 v. Spiegel, 549

1974The cited case of Wallace v. Laurel County Board of Education, 287 Ky. 454 , 153 S.W.2d 915 , cannot be authority for the principle that there can be no waiver of a municipality's immunity unless by specific legislative authority, for the reason that on page 916 that court poses the single question passed upon as: "* * * Is a County Board of Education liable in tort? * * *" The opinion in Maffei calls attention to the fact the only case cited in support of the contention that such immunity was waived by purchase of insurance was Rogers v. Butler, 170 Tenn. 125 , 92 S.W.2d 414 .

1974The cited case of Wallace v. Laurel County Board of Education, 287 Ky. 454 , 153 S.W.2d 915 , cannot be authority for the principle that there can be no waiver of a municipality's immunity unless by specific legislative authority, for the reason that on page 916 that court poses the single question passed upon as: "* * * Is a County Board of Education liable in tort? * * *" The opinion in Maffei calls attention to the fact the only case cited in support of the contention that such immunity was waived by purchase of insurance was Rogers v. Butler, 170 Tenn. 125 , 92 S.W.2d 414 .

1974There are many such cases from that jurisdiction, Bailey v. City of Knoxville, D.C.Tenn., 113 F. Supp. 3 , 5 — so many that this has been styled the "Tennessee Rule." Although this opinion earlier discusses the case of Thomas v. Broadlands Community Consol.

1974There are many such cases from that jurisdiction, Bailey v. City of Knoxville, D.C.Tenn., 113 F.Supp. 3 , 5—so many that this has been styled the “Tennessee Rule.” Although this opinion earlier discusses the case of Thomas v. Broadlands Community Consol.

1974The cited case of Wallace v. Laurel County Board of Education, 287 Ky. 454 , 153 S.W.2d 915 , cannot be authority for the principle that there can be no waiver of a municipality's immunity unless by specific legislative authority, for the reason that on page 916 that court poses the single question passed upon as: "* * * Is a County Board of Education liable in tort? * * *" The opinion in Maffei calls attention to the fact the only case cited in support of the contention that such immunity was waived by purchase of insurance was Rogers v. Butler, 170 Tenn. 125 , 92 S.W.2d 414 .

1974The cited case of Wallace v. Laurel County Board of Education, 287 Ky. 454 , 153 S.W.2d 915 , cannot be authority for the principle that there can be no waiver of a municipality's immunity unless by specific legislative authority, for the reason that on page 916 that court poses the single question passed upon as: "* * * Is a County Board of Education liable in tort? * * *" The opinion in Maffei calls attention to the fact the only case cited in support of the contention that such immunity was waived by purchase of insurance was Rogers v. Butler, 170 Tenn. 125 , 92 S.W.2d 414 .

1972Co., 35 Wis.2d 246 , 151 N.W.2d 77, 83 . 5 For these reasons, the contention of error because Dr. Karn’s letter was admitted and because Dr. Pace was cross-examined regarding the contents thereof has no validity.

1972Co., 35 Wis.2d 246 , 151 N.W.2d 77, 83 . 5 For these reasons, the contention of error because Dr. Karn’s letter was admitted and because Dr. Pace was cross-examined regarding the contents thereof has no validity.

1951The Appellate Court held that the instruction was properly given and judgment in favor of plaintiff was affirmed against the defendant's contention that the instruction was erroneous because plaintiff had grounded his right to recover on a contract that he was to receive a certain amount for his services and not on a quantum meruit. *74 In Town of Holbrook v. Girand 52 Ariz. 291 , 80 P. (2d) 695 the plaintiff sought a recovery on express contract while his pleading presented an action by quantum meruit for services rendered, the trial court rendered a judgment allowing a recovery for the reaso

1951The Appellate Court held that the instruction was properly given and judgment in favor of plaintiff was affirmed against the defendant's contention that the instruction was erroneous because plaintiff had grounded his right to recover on a contract that he was to receive a certain amount for his services and not on a quantum meruit. *74 In Town of Holbrook v. Girand 52 Ariz. 291 , 80 P. (2d) 695 the plaintiff sought a recovery on express contract while his pleading presented an action by quantum meruit for services rendered, the trial court rendered a judgment allowing a recovery for the reaso

1926On the other hand, the mortgagee in many cases has no means of knowing whether the premium has been paid, and as the insurance company must first make demand on the mortgagee for payment before the rights of the mortgagee can be affected by the failure of the mortgagor to pay, it would impose an unreasonable burden on the mortgagee to require it to keep constant watch on the condition of the account between the insurance company and the mortgagor in order to protect itself from liability for unpaid premiums. * * * The following cases support the contention that the clause in question imports a

1926On the other hand, the mortgagee in many cases has no means of knowing whether the premium has been paid, and as the insurance company must first make demand on the mortgagee for payment before the rights of the mortgagee can be affected by the failure of the mortgagor to pay, it would impose an unreasonable burden on the mortgagee to require it to keep constant watch on the condition of the account between the insurance company and the mortgagor in order to protect itself from liability for unpaid premiums. * * * The following cases support the contention that the clause in question imports a