In re Glennon
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas
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
- Combination Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. ObserSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1920
- Richardson v. Essex National Trunk, C., Co., Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
- Gorman v. Miner-Edgar Chemical Corp., New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau1938
3Cited by7 opinions
- Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Paul v. Baltimore Upholstering Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1974
- Wexler v. Lambrecht FoodsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
- Schulman v. MaleNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
- Mayti v. MaleNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.