Legal Opinion · Dissent

Calbeck v. Travelers Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided June 4, 1962No. 532Published

1Dissent

Mr. Justice Stewart, whom Mr. Justice Harlan joins,

dissenting.

In the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U. S. C. §§ 901-950, Congress carefully provided for the recovery of benefits only “if recovery for the disability or death through workmen’s compensation proceedings may not validly be provided by State law.” 33 U. S. C. § 903 (a). Now, thirty-five years later, the Court concludes that Congress did not really mean what it said. I cannot join in this exercise in judicial legerdemain. I think the statute still means what it says, and what it has always been thought to…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  3. Davis v. Department of Labor and Industries of Wash.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
  4. Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. RohdeSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  5. Western Fuel Co. v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1921

7 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