Lighthill v. McCurry

3 Citing cases

  1. Murphy v. Franklin County

    145 N.W.2d 465 (Iowa 1966)   Cited 5 times

    The definition and application of these words should not be too severely restricted. If a contribution is made to the ordinary comforts and conveniences which are reasonably appropriate to parties in their station in life, it should be considered as support and the recipient regarded as a dependent." (Emphasis in opinion) Lighthill v. McCurry, 175 Neb. 547, 552, 122 N.W.2d 468, 471. IV. Decedent's most obvious contribution to his parents was in cash.

  2. Roanoke Belt, Inc. v. Mroczkowski

    20 Va. App. 60 (Va. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 23 times

    Mitchell-Powers Hardware Co. v. Eaton, 171 Va. 255, 262, 198 S.E. 496, 499 (1938). As a general rule, parents must prove actual dependency, see, e.g., Maryland Casualty Co. v. Rowe, 506 S.W.2d 569, 572 (Ark. 1974); Lighthill v. McCurry, 122 N.W.2d 468, 471 (Neb. 1963), although a minority of jurisdictions include parents generally in a de jure hierarchical class of beneficiaries presumed to be dependent under an heirship theory. See, e.g., Gayler v. Renfro, 576 S.W.2d 911, 913 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979).

  3. Employers Mut. Cas. v. Taylor

    396 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. Civ. App. 1965)

    The question is relatively new as far as discussions are concerned by the Courts of Texas. But the question has been discussed by the courts of other states and the Federal courts. Many of the cases are: U.S. Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Britton, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 293, 188 F.2d 674; O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed. 483; Havre De Grace Fire Works Co. Inc. v. Howe (1955), 206 Md. 158, 110 A.2d 666; Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Morates (1963), 120 Ohio App. 315, 202 N.E.2d 317; In Re Est. of Hardaway (1960), 26 Ill. App.2d 493, 168 N.E.2d 796; Bruce v. Bruce (1955), 100 Ohio App. 121, 130 N.E.2d 433; Paul Spellman, Inc. v. Spellman, Dis.Ct. of App.Fla. (1958), 103 So.2d 661; Lighthill v. McCurry (1963), 175 Neb. 547, 122 N.W.2d 468; Robberson Steel Co. v. State Industrial Court, Sp.Ct. of Okla. (1960) 354 P.2d 211; International Harvester Co. v. Harris, Sup.Ct. of Oklahoma (1954) 272 P.2d 1046; Air Castle, Inc. v. Industrial Commission (1946), 394 Ill. 62, 67 N.E.2d 177; Mid-State Paving Co. v. Farthing (1958), 233 Miss. 333, 101 So.2d 850; Langland v. State of Minnesota (1957), 250 Minn. 544, 85 N.W.2d 736; and, Magnolia Construction Co. v. Dependents of Stovall, Sup.Ct. of Miss. (1964), 168 So.2d 297. These cases all hold that the question of dependency is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of the facts. They all hold that if there is any evidence to support such finding, the judgment must be affirmed.