Legal Opinion

Kilpinen's Case

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided November 8, 1934PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDunn, J.

This proceeding is under the workmen’s act, for compensation for further disability. 1929 Laws, Chap. 300, now R. S. (1930), Chap. 55, Sec. 1 et seq. The Industrial Accident Commission, a single member sitting, refused to make a new award, and dismissed the petition. A justice of the Superior Court, as was his ministerial duty, rendered a decree to enforce the rights of the parties upon the facts as found by the commissioner. The case comes forward on appeal.

The employee, a quarryman, was accidentally injured on October 31, 1929, a piece of granite flying from a blast rupturing his left…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Mailman's CaseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1919
  2. Pass's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
  3. Gauthier's CaseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1921
  4. Westman's CaseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1919
  5. Orff's CaseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1922

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Baker's CaseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1947
  2. White v. Monmouth Canning CompanySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1967
  3. Petersen's CaseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1942
  4. Houle v. Tondreau Bros. Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1952
  5. Middleton's CaseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1939

2 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