Legal Opinion

Bartlett's Case

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided August 9, 1926PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeasy, J.

Workmen’s Compensation Case. The statute cited in this opinion is Act of 1919, Chapter 238. The only question *375presented is whether the employer had such “knowledge of the injury” (Section 20) as to render unnecessary the thirty-day notice prescribed by Section 17. All essentials, other than the notice or. equivalent knowledge, are established and unquestioned.

The statutes involved, omitting irrelevant parts are as follows: Section 17. “No proceedings for compensation for an injury under this act shall be maintained unless a notice of the accident shall have been given to the employer within…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Allen v. City of MillvilleSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1915
  2. Donahue v. R. A. Sherman's Sons Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1916
  3. Troth v. Millville Bottle WorksSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1916

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Clausen v. Minnesota Steel Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
  2. Ogletree v. JonesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Bethlehem Steel Co. v. ParkerDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1947
  4. Clark v. DeCoster Egg FarmsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
  5. Van Domelon v. Industeial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933

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