Legal Opinion

Dashiell v. Holland Maide Candy Shops

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided November 13, 1936No. [No. 35, October Term, 1936.]PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The appeal is from a denial of the appellant's petition to reopen a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, article 101, for the purpose of adding to her compensation, because the petition was filed after the expiration of the year allowed for such an application by the Acts of 1931, ch. 342, amending section 54 of the act. An Act of 1935, chapter 236, effective subsequent to the expiration of that year, extended time allowances to three years, and the appellant contends that it extended the time for her application, notwithstanding the previous lapse of the time then allowed. The court…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Central Vermont Railway Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. Shwab v. DoyleSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  3. Russell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  4. William Danzer & Co. v. Gulf & Ship Island RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  5. Fullerton-Krueger Lumber Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Langston v. RiffeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  2. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board v. BowmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  3. Diamond Match Co. v. State Tax CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1938
  4. Wittel v. BakerCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1970
  5. State Ethics Commission v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004

8 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