Legal Opinion

Moore v. Rumford Printing Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided May 5, 1936PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.

The defendant’s bill of exceptions raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant the finding that the decedent’s “death was due to carbon monoxide contracted into his system by the intermittent inhalation of unconsumed illuminating gas for a period of about two hours while working at the defendant’s plant” on the night of June 15,1932, and also the question of whether the court was correct in ruling that his death “was caused by or resulted from an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.”

Three questions are therefore presented. First, was…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial BoardIllinois Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Columbine Laundry Co. v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1923
  3. Beck v. Commercial Driveaway, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Newell v. MoreauSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1947
  2. Derby v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1948
  3. Appeal of KehoeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
  4. Edwards v. Piedmont Publishing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
  5. Stevenson v. Lee Moor Contracting Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API