Legal Opinion

Biederzycki v. Farrel Foundry & MacHine Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided January 8, 1926PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

The various grounds of appeal resolve themselves into three. The first arises out of the denial of the defendants’ motion that the finding embody (1) the fact of the death of the defendant company’s employee, Biederzycki, and the name, residence, and age of his widow, and the names and ages of the minor children; (2) the date of the accident, the habits of the employee, and the period of time he worked after October 31st, 1923, when the finding of June 19th, 1923, recites he collapsed, and the physical condition of the employee at this time; or that a hearing de novo upon these issues be…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Linnane v. Aetna Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
  2. Miller v. American Steel & Wire Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
  3. Hayden v. R. Wallace & Sons Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  4. Dupre v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  5. De La Pena v. Jackson Stone Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1925

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Castro v. VieraSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  2. Adzima v. UAC/Norden DivisionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
  3. Madore v. New Departure Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  4. Duni v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  5. Halling v. Ind. Comm. of UtahUtah Supreme Court · 1927

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

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

Powered by the Exa API