Legal Opinion

Riley v. Berry Bros. Paint Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1940No. Docket No. 58, Calendar No. 40,565PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNorth, J.

Plaintiff wMle in the employ of the defendant paint company suffered an inguinal hernia. Admittedly it arose out of and in the course of Ms employment. He petitioned for an award of compensation under the occupational disease amendment to the •workmen’s compensation act, i. e., Act No. 61, Pub. Acts 1937 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1940, § 8485-1 et s'eq., Stat. Ann. 1939 Cum. Supp. § 17.220 et seq.). On review before the department, compensation was denied and plaintiff has appealed.

The above-cited amendment contains the following :

“Section 1. * * # (a) The word “disability” means the state of being…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Buckles v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1939

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kasarewski v. Hupp Motor Car Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Kravat v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1945
  3. Baughman v. Vicker's, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Amamotto v. J. Kozloff Fish Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Barclay v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1944

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