Legal Opinion
Matter of Decker v. Pouvailsmith Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 15, 1929PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPound, J.
On August 3, 1919, claimant, then under the age of fifteen years, was injured during the course of his employment by the Pouvailsmith Corporation. Notice of injury was promptly given in his behalf. It was the formal notice of injury which could not by any possibility be construed as a claim for compensation under our decision in Kaplan v. Kaplan Knitting Mills, Inc. (248 N. Y. 10). No claim for compensation was filed within a year after the accident and the right to claim compensation is barred unless some exception is found in the law which takes the case out of the general provisions of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Robinson v. . Robins Dry Dock Repair Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1924
- Noreen v. William Vogel & Bros.New York Court of Appeals · 1921
- Claim of Cheesman v. CheesmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Claim of Kaplan v. Kaplan Knitting Mills, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Claim of Grillo v. Sherman-Stalter Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Faltynowicz v. Battery Park City Auth. (In re World Trade Ctr. Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig.)Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 2017
- Paramino Lumber Co. v. MarshallSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Mulligan v. HiltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Truax-Traer Coal Co. v. Compensation CommissionerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1941
- Taylor v. Vassar CollegeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.