Legal Opinion

Gigleo v. Dorfman and Kimiavsky

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 25, 1927PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaines, J.

At the instance of the commissioner, a hearing was held on June 22d, 1926, upon an agreement made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by the claimant and respondents. The commissioner found that the claimant received an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on October 22d, 1925, his left eye being pierced by a nail. As a result of the injury, a traumatic cataract developed in the eye and was removed by an operation, which also required the removal of the lens of the eye. It results that if the claimant attempts to use the two eyes together, with a glass, there is no…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Matter of Marhoffer v. . MarhofferNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  2. Matter of Grammici v. . ZinnNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
  3. Claim of Frings v. Pierce Arrow Motor Car Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
  4. Claim of Kanzar v. Acorn Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  5. O'Brien's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. DeBlasiis v. Bartell & OlivetoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Welton v. 40 East Oak St. Bldg. CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1934
  3. France v. MunsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
  4. Kurtz v. Sunderland Bros.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Martinuzzi v. Capitol Marble & Tile Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1951

3 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