Legal Opinion

Hendrickson v. Continental Fibre Co.

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided December 13, 1926No. 149PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rodney, J.,

delivering the opinion of the Court:

At the oral argument and on the elaborate brief of the defendant only two causes of demurrer were argued at length, so we propose to confine our specific treatment to those two causes. It has been argued at length (1) that the diseases contracted by the plaintiff were “personal injuries” sustained by the plaintiff during the course of his employement by the defendant and, as such, are cognizable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and that since such act is the exclusive remedy for matters cognizable by it, that this commonlaw action can not be…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Victory Sparkler & Specialty Co. v. FrancksCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
  2. Adams v. Acme White Lead & Color WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Mauchline v. State Insurance FundSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  4. Peru Plow & Wheel Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Claim of Jeffreyes v. Charles H. Sager Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Echord v. RushSupreme Court of Kansas · 1927
  2. Griffith v. Raven Red Ash Coal Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1942
  3. United States Gypsum Co. v. McMichaelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
  4. Faline v. Guido and Francis DeAscanis & SonsSupreme Court of Delaware · 1963
  5. Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of America, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1987

12 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