Freeman v. Sunshine Min. Co.

CourtIdaho Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtKEETON; PORTER
CitationFreeman v. Sunshine Min. Co., 271 P.2d 1022, 75 Idaho 292 (Idaho 1954)
Decision Date15 June 1954
Docket NumberNo. 8069,8069
PartiesFREEMAN v. SUNSHINE MINING CO.

Rossi & Fanning, Wallace, for appellant.

H. J. Hull & Sons, Wallace, for respondent.

KEETON, Justice.

Claimant, on August 2, 1947, filed with the Industrial Accident Board, a claim for compensation because of an alleged occupational disease disability, and in his application for hearing filed June 10, 1948, claimed that he was totally and permanently disabled for work because of silicosis. The matter was set for hearing for June 30, 1948. Respondent denied liability and a voluntary settlement approved by the Board was made with claimant on the 30th day of June, 1948, and the proceedings dismissed. Thereafter on May 8, 1953, petition was filed by claimant's counsel to cancel the order of dismissal and for further hearing.

Among other defenses respondent pleaded that the claim was barred by the provisions of Secs. 72-607, 72-1228 and 72-1230, I.C. On September 1, 1953, the Board, by written final order made of record, ruled: 'Recovery under claimant's present petition is barred by Sections 72-607 and 72-1230 I.C.', and denied relief and dismissed the proceedings. Thereafter, on October 2, 1953, from this order, claimant filed a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and the Secretary of the Industrial Accident Board.

When the case was called for argument respondent challenged the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the matter and moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this Court had no jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days after the final order of the Board appealed from.

Sec. 72-609, I.C. reads in part as follows:

'Within thirty days after a final order or an award of the industrial accident board has been made and filed, any party affected thereby may appeal to the Supreme Court of the state to review the lawfulness of the final order or award. Such appeal shall be taken by filing in the Supreme Court a notice of appeal and serving a copy of the same on the secretary of the board and a copy upon the adverse party or his attorney. Such notice shall be filed and served within thirty days after such final order or award has been made and filed * * *.'

It therefore appears that failure to file the notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and a copy with the Secretary of the Board, within the time prescribed by the above statute, deprives this Court of...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Barber v. Honorof
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1989
  • Floyd v. BOARD OF COM'RS BONNEVILLE COUNTY
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • August 6, 2002
    ...Lindstrom v. Dist. Board of Health Panhandle Dist. I, 109 Idaho 956, 712 P.2d 657 (Ct.App.1985). See also Freeman v. Sunshine Mining Co., 75 Idaho 292, 271 P.2d 1022 (1954) (requirements of statutes relative to perfecting an appeal in workmen's compensation cases are mandatory and jurisdict......
  • Lulchuck v. Ohio Match Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1955
    ...deal only with service, whereas § 72-609 requires that the notice of appeal be filed within the thirty day period. Freeman v. Sunshine Mining Co., 75 Idaho 292, 271 P.2d 1022. The appeal is PORTER, ANDERSON and SMITH, JJ., and SPEAR, District Judge, concur. ...