Legal Opinion
Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. Lieberman
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided June 10, 1941No. 506PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WALKER, District Judge.
Statement of Facts.
1. Prior to October 14, 1935, the defendants being employers of labor came within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of New Jersey, N.J. S.A. 34:15-1 et seq.
2. During the period from April, 1935, to October 29, 1935, the defendants were not insured in any company for liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of New Jersey, and had not qualified and were not authorized by the Department of Banking and Insurance of the State of New Jersey to act as self-insurers.
3. On October 29, 1935, the plaintiff herein issued…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Tucker v. Frank J. Beltramo, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1936
- Goldfarb v. ReicherSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1934
- Frank v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1917
- Tucker v. Frank J. Beltramo, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
- Goodnow v. StrykerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hagen v. GalleranoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
- King Dooley v. PantojaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1943
- Dooley v. PantojaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1943
- Hardware Mut. Casualty Co. v. LiebermanDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1942