Legal Opinion

Clark v. Henry & Wright Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 7, 1950PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.

The subordinate facts in this case are not in serious dispute. After corrections of the finding, as claimed by both parties, are made to the extent we find these claims supported by the' record before us, the following facts appear: The plaintiff was employed by the defendant employer as an assembly worker in the so-called “roll feed” department. There, as a consequence of his exposure to oil, he contracted an industrial dermatitis of the hands and arms. Compensation for total incapacity was paid until May 24, 1948, under a voluntary agreement and thereafter, until July 19, 1948, under a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Matter of Jordan v. . Decorative Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1921
  2. Osterlund v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
  3. Reilley v. CarrollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
  4. Roller v. WarrenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1925
  5. Manley's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Hansen v. GordonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  2. Wynn v. Peoples Natural Gas Co. of SCSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1961
  3. Czeplicki v. Fafnir Bearing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  4. Coleman v. Quality Concrete Products, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1965
  5. Desrosiers v. Dionne Bros. Furniture, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1953

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API