Legal Opinion

Gianfrancisco v. Public Service Co-ordinated Transport

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided January 17, 1933PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Por the purpose of our present decision it is necessary to consider only the fourth and fifth reasons filed by the prosecutor in certiorari, which are as follows:

“4. Because the determination and judgment of the workmen’s compensation bureau did not state upon what evidence the finding was predicated.
“5. Because the finding of facts and judgment of the workmen’s compensation bureau does not state in detail the character and extent of the injury or disability which the petitioner had or suffered, but merely states the deputy commissioner’s conclusions so much so that the judgment is not…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dreyfus v. Lutz Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1928
  2. Dunnewald v. Henry Steers, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1916
  3. Long v. Bergen County Court of Common PleasSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1913
  4. Diskon v. BubbSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1916
  5. New York Shipbuilding Co. v. BuchananSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1913

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Rubeo v. Arthur McMullen Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
  2. Folsom v. Magna Manufacturing Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
  3. Patton v. American Oil Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1935
  4. Fontaine v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API