Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Locker

10 Citing cases

  1. Parker v. Williams

    332 P.2d 19 (Okla. 1958)   Cited 1 times

    "Wherefore, respondent and insurance carrier pray that the Commission remand this cause for further proceedings." Petitioners rely on Stanolind Pipe Line Co. v. Geurin, 162 Okla. 71, 19 P.2d 139; Barnsdall Refining Corporation v. Locker, 182 Okla. 318, 77 P.2d 749; and City of El Reno v. Short, 206 Okla. 592, 245 P.2d 711. In each of these cases the party seeking further hearing asked at the time of the trial to be permitted to offer some specific testimony.

  2. North American Compress Warehouse Co. v. Givens

    445 P.2d 270 (Okla. 1968)   Cited 5 times

    We have held that the granting or denying of a request for continuance of a hearing for the taking of additional testimony rests to a large extent within the discretion of the State Industrial Court and its decision will not be reversed by the court "unless there is an abuse of discretion resulting in manifest injustice." City of El Reno v. Short, 206 Okla. 592, 245 P.2d 711; Barnsdall Ref. Corp. v. Locker, 182 Okla. 318, 77 P.2d 749. The evidence which respondent sought to secure relates to the ability of claimant to work at ordinary manual labor after commencing work on August 31, 1966, for the City Bus Company, also his failure to advise the officials of the bus company at the time he commenced working that he had a compensation claim pending.

  3. Osage Implement Company v. Bottrell

    363 P.2d 940 (Okla. 1961)   Cited 2 times
    In Osage Implement Company v. Bottrell, Okla., 363 P.2d 940, we held that an application to disqualify a judge in a civil proceeding on the grounds of prejudice or bias is addressed to the trial court's sound discretion, whose ruling thereon will not be reversed on appeal, unless a clear abuse of discretion appears.

    "The granting or refusing of a continuance on account of absence of counsel is a matter of discretion with the trial court, and, unless it appears that such discretion was abused to the prejudice of the substantial rights of a litigant, the action of the court will not be disturbed upon appeal." And in Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Locker, 182 Okla. 318, 77 P.2d 749, 750, we held: "It is the duty of the State Industrial Commission to grant both the employer and the employee full opportunity to be heard in a proceeding brought before it, but, before an award entered by the commission denying or approving the claim of an injured employee will be vacated for failure to grant a continuance, it must appear that there has been a substantial failure to afford a full and complete hearing."

  4. Jones v. Troup-Moore Hall Drilling Company

    359 P.2d 577 (Okla. 1961)   Cited 7 times

    Wm. A. Smith Construction Co. v. Price, 178 Okla. 423, 63 P.2d 108. We conclude and hold that there was no failure to afford claimant an opportunity to have a full and complete hearing, and therefore, the State Industrial Court did not abuse its discretion in failing to vacate its order on appeal. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Mitchell, supra; Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Locker, 182 Okla. 318, 77 P.2d 749. Order sustained.

  5. Foster Wheeler Corporation v. Bennett

    354 P.2d 764 (Okla. 1960)   Cited 20 times
    In Foster Wheeler Corp. v. Bennett, 354 P.2d 764, 767-68 (Okla. 1960), pursuant to an arrangement for employment with a labor union in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the foreman of a Kansas company called the union directly and requested three iron workers.

    They are not in point. We have discussed the right to a full and complete hearing in Conrad v. State Industrial Commission et al., 181 Okla. 324, 73 P.2d 858; Amerada Petroleum Corp. v. Hester et al., 188 Okla. 394, 109 P.2d 820; Pioneer Mills Co. et al. v. Webster et al., 186 Okla. 616, 99 P.2d 507; and Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Locker, 182 Okla. 318, 77 P.2d 749, 750. The petitioner had due notice of the filing of the claim.

  6. Berna v. Maloney-Crawford Tank Co.

    281 P.2d 736 (Okla. 1955)   Cited 5 times

    Claimant relied on Hauschildt v. Collins, 152 Okla. 193, 4 P.2d 99. This case is readily distinguishable from the case under consideration. In Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Locker, 182 Okla. 318, 77 P.2d 749, 750, it is stated: "It is the duty of the State Industrial Commission to grant both the employer and the employee full opportunity to be heard in a proceeding brought before it, but, before an award entered by the commission denying or approving the claim of an injured employee will be vacated for failure to grant a continuance, it must appear that there has been a substantial failure to afford a full and complete hearing."

  7. City of El Reno v. Short

    1952 OK 234 (Okla. 1952)   Cited 4 times
    In City of El Reno v. Short, 206 Okla. 592, 245 P.2d 711, we held that the Commission did not err in refusing a continuance for the taking of additional testimony.

    There is no explanation of why the witnesses now wanted by petitioner did not appear at the trial set May 22, 1951, At the date of the trial the State Insurance Fund had in its possession the reports of the physicians as above mentioned. In Barnsdall Refining Corporation v. Locker, 182 Okla. 318, 77 P.2d 749, we said: "In a hearing before the State Industrial Commission upon proper notice where all parties are present or represented by counsel, an application for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the commission, and a judgment of the commission denying the continuance will not be reversed by this court on review, unless there is an abuse of discretion by the commission resulting in manifest injustice."

  8. Winter v. E.B. Bush Const. Co.

    205 Okla. 610 (Okla. 1952)

    An examination of the record of these proceedings discloses that claimant was given an opportunity to introduce any and all testimony relative to any issue in dispute. In Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Locker, 182 Okla. 318, 77 P.2d 749, it is stated: "In a hearing before the State Industrial Commission upon proper notice and all parties are present or represented by counsel, an application for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the commission, and a judgment of the commission denying the continuance will not be reversed by this court on review, unless there is an abuse of discretion by the commission resulting in manifest injustice."

  9. Manhattan Long Const. Co. v. Bruton

    138 P.2d 814 (Okla. 1943)   Cited 6 times

    Petitioners first contend that since the award was made for a disability sustained as the result of nonspecific injuries for which compensation was payable under the "other cases" provision of the statute, it was therefore one which the Industrial Commission had no authority of law to commute to a lump sum. In support of the contention so made petitioners cite Pioneer Drilling Co. v. Morphis, 183 Okla. 424, 82 P.2d 1048; Barnsdall Refining Corp. v. Locker, 182 Okla. 318, 77 P.2d 749; Cornhuskers Theatres, Inc., v. Foster, 181 Okla. 341, 74 P.2d 109. An examination of the cited cases will reveal that they hold that the effect of the amendment of section 13365, O. S. 1931, by section 2, ch. 29, S.L. 1933, was to render an award under the "other cases" provision of the statute as it then existed one which the commission was without authority to commute to a lump sum. Subsequent to the promulgation of the cited decisions, however, the cited section of the statute has been amended (85 O. S. 1941 ยง 41) so as to provide as follows: "Awards for permanent disability, either total or partial, under subdivisions '1' and '3' of section 13356, Oklahoma Statutes 1931, shall be made for the aggregate total amount of compensation which the commission shall find the claimant will be entitled to receive, less any sum or sums theretofore paid which the said commission may find to be a proper credit thereon, and when same becomes final, the whole sum or any unpaid portion thereof s

  10. Ross Oil Co. v. Crouse

    96 P.2d 1030 (Okla. 1939)

    We find no error in the refusal to continue the cause for the taking of this testimony, since such testimony, if taken along the line suggested, would have been cumulative. As said in the case of Barnsdall Ref. Corp. v. Locker, 182 Okla. 318, 77 P.2d 749: "It is the duty of the State Industrial Commission to grant both the employer and the employee full opportunity to be heard in a proceeding brought before it, but before an award entered by the commission denying or approving the claim of the injured employee will be vacated for failure to grant a continuance, it must appear that there has been a substantial failure to afford a full and complete hearing."