Legal Opinion
Streng's Piece Dye Works, Inc. v. Galasso
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided April 30, 1937PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Heher, J.
We concur in the view entertained by appellant that the “determination and rule for judgment,” entered in the compensation bureau on March 24th, 1932, was in essence a mere agreement of compromise, approved by the bureau, and therefore not a “formal award” within the intendment of paragraph 21 (f), section II, of the Workmen’s Compensation act of 1911, as amended by chapter 279 of the laws of 1931. Pamph. L. 1911, pp. 134, 763; Pamph. L. 1931, p. 704. Respondent’s contrary insistence rests upon a palpable misinterpretation. Therefore, the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- P. Bronstein Co., Inc. v. HoffmanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
- Drake v. C. v. Hill & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1936
- Herbert v. Newark Hardware & Plumbing Supply Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1930
- Patton v. American Oil Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1936
- Ecken v. O'BrienSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Donofrio v. Haag Brothers, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
- Simon v. RHH Steel Laundry, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1953
- Rojeski v. Pennington Dairy Farms, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
- Rightmyer v. Totowa Borough, New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau1938
- Corasio v. Imhoff Berg Silk Dyeing Co., New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau1937
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.