Wigfall v. Tideland Utilities, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that when the Legislature fails to alter a statute, “its inaction is evidence the Legislature agrees with this Court’s interpretation” of the statute
• holding workers’ compensation claimant failed to preserve his equal protection argument because he failed to make a Rule 59 motion after the circuit court failed to rule on the issue
• observing workers’ compensation laws “are not designed to compensate the employee for his injury, but merely to provide him with the bare minimum of income and medical care to keep him from being a burden to others”
• finding the Singleton court intended for “impairment” to encompass a physical deficiency and concluding a claimant is not limited to scheduled benefits under section 42-9-30 if he or she can show “additional injuries beyond a lone scheduled injury”
• \The term 'shall' in a statute means that the action is mandatory.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).