Legal Opinion
Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. Pillsbury
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 4, 1938No. 8374PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.
On February 9, 1935, Alfred E. Hunter (hereafter called claimant) was employed by the Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Company (hereafter called the employer), in maritime employment, upon navigable waters of the United States. To secure payment of compensation to its employees under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, § 1 et seq. 44 Stat. 1424—1446, as amended, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-950, the employer had, pursuant to section 32 of the act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 933, insured payment of such compensation with the Pacific Employers Insurance Company (hereafter called…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Harkrader v. WadleySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Draper v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Sage v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Alaska Packers Assn. v. PillsburySupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Standard Oil Co. v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Department of Water and Power v. AndersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- Burley Welding Works, Inc. v. LawsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1944
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. CardilloCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
- Partos v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- McCrone v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.