Legal Opinion

Ahmed's Case

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 26, 1932PublishedCited by 68 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.

These are proceedings under the workmen’s compensation act. It is not now in controversy that each employee received injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment by a subscriber under the workmen’s compensation act.

The injuries of Ahmed were sustained on September 11, 1930. The board member found on December 27, 1930, that total incapacity resulted therefrom and awarded compensation accordingly. The insurer duly claimed a review. The reviewing board on April 9, 1931, affirmed and adopted the findings and decision of the single member *182and, in accordance with G. L. c. 152, § 10,…

2Cases cited51 opinions

  1. New York Central Railroad Company v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  3. Mountain Timber Company v. State of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. Dohany v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  5. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. MatthewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1899

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

3Cited by68 opinions

  1. Ferriter v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  2. Foley v. Polaroid Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  3. Old Colony Railroad v. Assessors of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  4. Opinion of the Justices to the Senate & the House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  5. Neff v. Commissioner of the Department of Industrial AccidentsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995

63 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