Legal Opinion

Curley v. Beryllium Development Corp.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 1937No. Calendar 39,454PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWiest, J.

Plaintiff seeks our writ of mandamus, directing the department of labor and industry to grant him a delayed review of the holding of a deputy commissioner denying him compensation on the 7th day of April, 1932. July 7, 1932, plaintiff filed with the department claim, of review and set up, as grounds for the delay, that he had no attorney at the hearing and was not cognizant of the rules of the department requiring an appeal within a limited time, and petitioned for extension of time within which to claim review. He also set up the usual grounds for aii appeal.

The time within which to appeal…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Detroit Tug & Wrecking Co. v. GartnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Kalucki v. American Car & Foundry Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Brunette v. Quincy Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Collins v. Albert A. Albrecht Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Curley v. Beryllium CorporationMichigan Supreme Court · 1936

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Dodge v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1947
  2. City of Kentwood v. Sommerdyke EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
  3. City of Kentwood v. Sommerdyke EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
  4. City of Kentwood v. Sommerdyke EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API