Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mallard v. F. M. Bohannon, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 7, 1942Published

1DissentBaeNhill, J.

Ordinarily, a State statute has no extraterritorial application or effect. Sec. 36 of ch. 120, Public Laws 1929, *546was included in the Act to meet this limitation in so far as it applies to employees working both within and without the State, and so as to permit compensation when such employee is -injured while engaged in work in another state. That is, this provision was inserted for the protection of North Carolina employees who are injured while engaged in the performance of their duties elsewhere than in this State. It does not protect employees whose duties are performed entirely outside…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Matter of Post v. . Burger GohlkeNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Claim of Smith v. Heine Safety Boiler Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
  3. State v. . VickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. Southern Underwriters v. GallagherTexas Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Reaves v. . Mill Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

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

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

Powered by the Exa API