Legal Opinion
Smith v. State
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 8, 1952PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
The plaintiff claimed to have contracted tuberculosis while working for the state at Uncas-on-Thames, a state sanatorium for the treatment of that disease. He asked for compensation under General Statutes, Cum. Sup. 1951, § 887b. The commissioner made a finding and pro forma award in his favor. Both parties treated the facts found as the facts of the case. It was reserved by the Superior Court for the advice of this court under General Statutes, § 7464. This can be done without any appeal or judgment when the facts are not in dispute. Plecity v. George McLachlan Hat Co., 116 Conn. 216, 219,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Grain Handling Co. v. SweeneyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- Lee Bros. Furniture Co. v. CramSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- Massolini v. DriscollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Cohen v. North American Life & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Smith v. Benefit Assn. of Railway EmployeesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Giambattista v. Thomas A. EdisonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1954
- State v. DortchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- Everett v. IngrahamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- Going v. Cromwell Fire DistrictSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Brooks v. Gilman Paint CompanyTennessee Supreme Court · 1961
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.