Legal Opinion
Claim of Adams v. Ross
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 27, 1930PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Per curiam
The claimant received injuries April 2, 1928, resulting in the loss of the sight of Ms left eye. It has been found that these injuries were accidental and occurred in the course of Ms employment wMle claimant was engaged with a band spray pump in spraying a cMcken house on Ms employer’s premises. The employer claimed that he was engaged in farming and it has been so found by the Board, and that the claimant was employed as a farm laborer. It was apparently on tMs ground that the claim was disallowed.
The evidence does not sustain such a finding. The employer is evidently a retired business…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ward & Gow v. KrinskySupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Claim of Krinsky v. WardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
- Matter of Uhl v. . the Hartwood ClubNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Matter of Krinsky v. . Ward GowNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
- Claim of Uhl v. Hartwood ClubAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
3Cited by9 opinions
- Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Commission and Jermaine StapletonSupreme Court of Iowa · 2017
- Dost v. Pevely Dairy CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
- Jones v. CochranCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- Claim of McAllister v. CobbAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- Ackert v. DelanoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.