Legal Opinion
Claim of Glickman v. Greater New York Taxpayers
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 5, 1953PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFuld, J.
While workmen’s compensation “ is not confined by common-law conceptions of scope of employment ” (O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, 340 U. S. 504, 506), more must be shown, to warrant an award, than injury or death and the relationship of employer and employee. It must also appear that such injury or death arose “ out of and in the course of ” the employment (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 10).
Sidney Glickman worked as an outside claims investigator for appellant employer, a casualty insurance company. His work, of an investigatory nature, was restricted to a very limited area, *433to upper…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Claim of Dependents of Marks v. GrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Claim of Davis v. Newsweek MagazineNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Industrial Commission v. GintertOhio Supreme Court · 1934
- Matter of Bennett v. Marine Works, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Rappaport v. International Playtex Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
- Claim of Paly v. Lane Brush Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1958
- Claim of Benjamin v. Kaplan Electric Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959
- Claim of Mahoney v. Michaels Stern & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959
- Claim of Neville v. Arthur Andersen & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.