Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Holmes
| Decision Date | 22 September 1941 |
| Docket Number | Civil 4396 |
| Citation | 58 Ariz. 1,117 P.2d 90 |
| Parties | PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC., and EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD., Petitioners, v. L. C. HOLMES, E. T. HOUSTON and LYNN LOCKHART, Members of and Constituting the Industrial Commission of the State of Arizona, THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA and GEORGE C. EDWARDS, Administrator of the Estate of James L. Edwards, Respondents |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL by Certiorari from an award of The Industrial Commission of Arizona. Award affirmed.
Mr Theodore G. McKesson, for Petitioners.
Mr Rouland W. Hill and Mr. Howard C. Twitty, for Respondent Industrial Commission.
Mr. H H. Baker and Mrs. Nellie T. Bush, for Respondent Edwards.
This is an appeal by Paramount Pictures, Inc., appellant, and another, from an award of the Industrial Commission of Arizona, made in favor of George C. Edwards as administrator of the estate of James L. Edwards, deceased. Appellee urges that the award should be affirmed for the reason that the case has previously been before us in Paramount Pictures Inc., et al. v. Industrial Commission et al., 56 Ariz. 217, 106 P.2d 1024, and that the issues upon which it is urged we should reserve this award could and should have been presented to the court in the previous appeal, and cannot, therefore, be brought before us now.
The first appeal was from an award of the commission in favor of James L. Edwards, for injuries received by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by Paramount Pictures, Inc. In this award the commission gave Edwards $1,322.75 as compensation for his injuries, and also directed the payment to him of some $4,908 for medical attendance necessitated by reason of the accident, for which petitioner had already paid or was obligated to pay. As shown by the record in this court, appellant urged as grounds for its appeal that the condition which caused the necessity for medical attendance to Edwards, and which ultimately resulted in his death, was not the result of an injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the employment of Edwards by appellant; that there was no evidence as to the amount of his wages at the time of injury; that a report of the injury was not made in the time required by the statute that the medical and hospital expenses awarded to Edwards were not made necessary by any compensable injury sustained by him, and that he had died since the appeal, and under our decision in Sorenson v. Six Companies, 53 Ariz. 83, 85 P.2d 980, the right to an award of compensation did not survive to the administrator. We held the administrator could not recover the compensation but could recover for medical expenses which deceased had paid, or for which his estate had become obligated. Under the peculiar provisions of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Youngblood
...even greater force, preclusion should occur on remand after direct appellate review has been exhausted. Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Holmes, 58 Ariz. 1, 4, 117 P.2d 90, 91 (1942) ("appeals from a judgment may not be taken piecemeal, and ... any question which could and should have been raise......
-
Bogard v. Cannon & Wendt Elec. Co., Inc.
... ... 395, 402, 146 P. 504, 506 (App.1915) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Holmes, ... 212 P.3d 25 ... 58 Ariz. 1, 4, 117 P.2d 90, 91 (1941) (appeals ... ...
-
Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co., Inc.
...we will not consider on second appeal a matter which could and should have been raised on first appeal. Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Holmes, 58 Ariz. 1, 4, 117 P.2d 90, 91 (1941). Without more, we deem Thompson's two unraised issues affirmed on first appeal. Arizona-Parral Mining Co. v. Forb......
-
Hurst v. Hurst
...been raised on the first appeal may not be presented to nor considered by this court on the second appeal. Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Holmes, 58 Ariz. 1, 4, 117 P.2d 90 (1941); Gold v. Killeen, 50 Ariz. 126, 130, 69 P.2d 800 (1937); 5B C.J.S. Appeal & Error § 1825. In the Paramount case, s......