Legal Opinion

Bubis v. Flockhart Foundry Co.

New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau

Decided March 11, 1937PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The material facts as developed in the evidence are not in dispute, and are essentially as follows: Petitioner was regularly employed as a chipper by the respondent, whose business, as its name would impart, was that of operating a foundry. His duties consisted of chipping rough edges from castings by means of an automatic chipping machine. He *300received for his said services an average weekly wage of $26.25, being one-fourth of the gross weekly earnings of a crew composed of himself and three other co-workers. Petitioner and his crew worked principally in a large foundry room, situated on the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Reimers v. Proctor Publishing Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1914
  2. Zabriskie v. Erie RailroadSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1913
  3. Kolaszynski v. KlieSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1917
  4. Hanna v. Erie RailroadSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1930
  5. Smith v. CorsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1915

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Fuhs v. SwensonWyoming Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Waskevitz v. Clifton Paper Board Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
  3. Dewar v. General Motors Corp., New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau1941
  4. Rosenberg v. Biboni & Co.New York County Court, Essex County · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API