Legal Opinion

MacAleese's Case

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided April 2, 1941PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.

In MacAleese’s Case, 301 Mass. 25, we held that the employee of one Lamb, who was not insured under the workmen’s compensation law, was entitled to compensation from the insurer of H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., with whom Lamb had a contract to remove a transformer from the *514Hood plant. Liability of Hood’s insurer was predicated upon the ground that the work under Lamb’s contract was performed on the premises of the Hood company and was “part of or process in” and not “merely ancillary and incidental to” the trade or business of that company. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 152, § 18. The case is here again for…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Clark v. M. W. Leahy Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
  2. Newell v. HadleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
  3. Panasuk's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  4. Bruso's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
  5. Bartholomew v. StobbsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Allstate Insurance v. Quinn Construction Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1989
  2. Boardman's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
  3. Graeber Bros., Inc. v. TaylorMississippi Supreme Court · 1959
  4. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. N. J. B. Prime InvestorsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1978
  5. Gould's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1968

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