Legal Opinion
Pieczonka v. Pullman Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided March 6, 1939No. 142PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Per curiam
This action comes back to us after a second trial; this time on appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff entered on the verdict of a jury. Our former opinion sets out the general outline of the case in enough detail, and we shall not repeat it. Pieczonka v. Pullman Company, 2 Cir., 89 *433F.2d 353. We held that, while the evidence would not support a recovery under the N. Y. Labor Law, Consol.Laws, c. 31, it would, at common-law; and the chief question is whether that remained true on the second trial. The defendant showed that on July 14, 1928, it secured three “Watters Sandblast Helmets”; and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pieczonka v. Pullman Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1937
- Beugger v. AshleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
- Porter v. Magnetic Separator Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
3Cited by10 opinions
- Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- Bertha Building Corporation v. National Theatres Corporation, Gumbiner Theatrical Enterprises, Inc. v. National Theatres CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
- Lewis Orgel and the Michie Company v. Clark Boardman Co., Ltd., and Alfred D. JahrCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Cream Records, Incorporated v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company, a Wisconsin Corporation, and Benton and Bowles Incorporated, a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Carter Products, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive CompanyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1963
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.