Bartlett's Case
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
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
- Allen v. City of MillvilleSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1915
- Donahue v. R. A. Sherman's Sons Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1916
- Troth v. Millville Bottle WorksSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1916
3Cited by13 opinions
- Clausen v. Minnesota Steel Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- Ogletree v. JonesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1940
- Bethlehem Steel Co. v. ParkerDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1947
- Clark v. DeCoster Egg FarmsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
- Van Domelon v. Industeial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.