Legal Opinion
State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Pillsbury
District Court, S.D. California
Decided June 9, 1939No. 9—MPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McCORMICK, District Judge.
The sole question remaining for decision is whether, under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., there should be allowed to petitioner insurance carrier as a credit in the compensation award the sum of $663.04 which has been paid by the employer of respondent Taylor to him during a period of time when he was totally disabled and performed no work.
We have already, in a hearing de novo, held, because of the binding ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598, that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Crowell v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Twin Harbor Stevedoring & Tug Co. v. MarshallCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
- Arrow Stevedore Co. v. PillsburyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937
- Alaska Packers Ass'n v. MarshallCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. HoageCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1936
3Cited by7 opinions
- Daoud v. MatzSupreme Court of Florida · 1954
- Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. General Dynamics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. General Dynamics Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- McCabe Inspection Service, Inc. v. WillardDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1956
- McCabe Inspection Service, Inc. v. WillardCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.