Legal Opinion

Dillingham's Case

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided August 20, 1928PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDunn, J.

Occupational disease was treated as personal injury by accident under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the question is whether this be error in law.

Some introductory definition and limitation seems desirable. On September 13, 1927, claimant began work in the shoe factory of Rowan & Moore, Inc., in Skowhegan, pulling from the soles of shoes the tacks that held the shoes on lasts. He continued in the employ of the corporation until the twentieth day of the same month, when he quit work that he-might have medical care for his hands, which on that day, or a day or two before (the evidence in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Madden's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  2. Adams v. Acme White Lead & Color WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Iwanicki v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Miller v. American Steel & Wire Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
  5. Seattle Can Co. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Industrial Commission v. UleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1935
  2. Towle v. Department of Transportation, State HighwaySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1974
  3. Perkins v. KavanaughSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1938
  4. Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1964
  5. Spence v. Bath Iron Works Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1944

3 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