Legal Opinion
Matter of Kleid v. Carr Bros.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 29, 1949PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Per curiam
Since this unwitnessed accident took place during working hours in a place where Kleid’s work commonly took him, the section 21 presumption justified the board’s finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, even though Kleid’s presence at the exact spot was unexplained (Matter of Department of Taxation & Finance v. Cohen, 298 N. Y. 825; Matter of Welz v. Markel Service, 296 N. Y. 640; Matter of Mayer v. Faber Pencil Co., 274 App. Div. 1079, motion for leave to appeal denied 298 N. Y. 935; Matter of Boehm v. Sokol Hall Holding Corp., 274 App. Div. 954, motion for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Matter of Bollard v. EngelNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Matter of Welz v. Markel Service, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1946
- Claim of Boehm v. D. A. Sokol Hall Holding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
- Claim of Mayer v. Eberhard Faber Pencil Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1949
- Claim of Department of Taxation & Finance v. Estate of CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
3Cited by15 opinions
- Claim of McCormack v. National City BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Claim of Davis v. Newsweek MagazineNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Middleton v. Coxsackie Correctional FacilityNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Claim of Doca v. Federal Stevedoring Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Kumkumian v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.