Coppola v. Logistec Connecticut, Inc.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1DissentZarella, J.
Under the rule articulated by the majority, state compensation laws will be extended seaward and allowed to coexist with federal jurisdiction over any claim “involving injuries incurred on navigable waters when the employer and the employee are locally based, the employment contract is performed within *35the state and partly on land, the injury took place on the state’s territorial waters and the employer [is] required under the state [Workers’ Compensation] [A]ct to secure compensation for any land based injuries incurred by the employee.” Majority opinion, p. 5; cf. Lane v. Universal…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection AgencySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. CaputoSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Davis v. Department of Labor and Industries of Wash.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.