Legal Opinion

In re Glennon

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Decided March 25, 1940PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hartshorne, C. P. J.

This is another of the numerous applications for benefits under the so-called one per cent, fund. The difficulty in this class of cases is apparently due to a misunderstanding of the legislative intent as exhibited in the present and preceding acts. Pamph. L. 1938, ch. 198; R. S. 1937, 34:15-94, 95, 95.1; Pamph. L. 1936, ch. 55; Pamph. L. 1933, ch. 456; Pamph. L. 1931, ch. 108; Pamph. L. 1923, ch. 81. This intent is (1) to insure to the employe full compensation, where a compensable disability succeeds, *197but has no causative connection with, the results of a prior…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Combination Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. ObserSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1920
  2. Richardson v. Essex National Trunk, C., Co., Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
  3. Gorman v. Miner-Edgar Chemical Corp., New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau1938

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Paul v. Baltimore Upholstering Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1974
  3. Wexler v. Lambrecht FoodsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
  4. Schulman v. MaleNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
  5. Mayti v. MaleNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960

2 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