Legal Opinion

Ross' Case

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided October 27, 1924PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDunn, J.

Petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There was failure to comply with the statute requiring that an answer be filed. R. S„ Chap. 50, Sec. 32, as amended. This left the petition, analogously to the procedure in equity, to be taken as confessed on the well pleaded facts. Mitchell’s Case, 121 Maine, 455; Morin’s Case, 122 Maine, 338; McCollar’s Case, 122 Maine, 136. But it was not. On the contrary, apparently in the erroneous supposition that ah answer was in the file, the case proceeded to full hearing. In the opinion subsequently entered, the Chairman of the Industrial Accident…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Mutual Life Insurance v. HillmonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Insurance Co. v. MosleySupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  3. Queen v. HepburnSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
  4. Boston & Albany Railroad v. O'ReillySupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  5. Northern Pacific Railroad v. UrlinSupreme Court of the United States · 1895

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Goldstein v. SklarSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1966
  2. White v. Monmouth Canning CompanySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1967
  3. Ideal Bakery v. SchryverWyoming Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Newell v. North Anson Reel Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1965
  5. Wise v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1934

4 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