Legal Opinion

Hayden v. R. Wallace & Sons Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 13, 1923PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

The defendants moved that the Commissioner permit them to prove facts from which, if proved, it must have been held, as matter of law, that the plaintiffs were employees of Fitzpatrick, an independent contractor, and not of the R. Wallace & Sons Manufacturing Company, in the work they were engaged upon when injured; and further, that a voluntary agreement for compensation was entered into by the defendants with Molstre on August 9th, 1921, and with Hayden on January 19th, 1922, and thereafter supplemental findings and awards were made on due notice, in the case of Molstre twice, and of Hayden…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Fair v. Hartford Rubber Works Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
  2. Burritt v. BelfySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1879
  3. Jarvis v. MartinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1904
  4. Grabowski v. MiskellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
  5. Thompson v. TowleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Castro v. VieraSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  2. Marone v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  3. Gonirenki v. American Steel & Wire Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
  4. Palverari v. FintaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
  5. Biederzycki v. Farrel Foundry & MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1926

24 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