Legal Opinion
Pollak v. Danbury Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided December 5, 1925PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMaltbie, J.
These two cases were tried together and present to this court precisely the same legal situation. The defendant is engaged in the manufacture of underwear, with factories at Danbury and Bethel, Connecticut, and Brewster and Millerton, New York. August 21st, 1923, each of the plaintiffs entered into a contract of employment with it, by the terms of which each was to work for the company in the same capacity as at that time employed and to perform such additional services as might be required, such employment to continue until December 31st, 1923. Felix G. Poliak was at that time general…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Howard v. . DalyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Mutual Life Insurnace v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Milage v. . WoodwardNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Jerome v. . Queen City Cycle Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- M. J. Daly & Sons, Inc. v. New Haven Hotel Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1917
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Elgar v. ElgarSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Valley Juice Ltd. v. Evian Waters of France, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Mansfield v. LangMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Gannett Co., Inc. v. Register Pub. Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1977
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.