Legal Opinion

Curley v. Beryllium Corporation

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 1936No. Docket No. 41, Calendar No. 39,121PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBushnell, J.

Three questions are involved in this appeal:(1) Is plaintiff entitled to recover at common law under the pleadings and proofs ?(2) Is plaintiff’s injury one over which the department of labor and industry had jurisdiction under the workmen’s compensation act?(3) Is plaintiff barred from suing in a court of law by reason of the proceedings taken before the department of labor and industry?

The first question was not determined by the trial court and the other two were answered in the affirmative by a directed verdict for defendant.

Late in 1931 defendant moved its plant and equipment from…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Adams v. Acme White Lead & Color WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Fox v. Peninsular White Lead & Color WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Twork v. Munising Paper Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Toomey v. Eureka Iron & Steer WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Matter of CurtissNew York Court of Appeals · 1910

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Morris v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Cell v. Yale & Towne Manfg. Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Curley v. Beryllium Development Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API