Legal Opinion
Mitaly v. Crofut & Knapp
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 16, 1934PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHaines, J.
The claimant was employed by the Crofut & Knapp Company and thereafter by the Hodgshon-Berg Company, a subsidiary of the former, for approximately ten years, the last seven years as a finisher and renovator of hats. It was part of his duty to shake powder onto the hat and also to sandpaper the hat to bring out the smooth surface.
In November, 1930, the claimant was suffering from a violent cough and consulted a physician who treated him for a number of months for a cold. He continued to work until June, 1931, when he terminated his employment because of some disagreement with the employer. He…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Powers v. Hotel Bond Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
- Driscoll v. Jewell Belting Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Cishowski v. Clayton Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Kosik v. Manchester Construction Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
3Cited by5 opinions
- Levecque v. DupuisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
- Henry v. KeeganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- Barron v. City Printing Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1999
- Vélez v. Comisión IndustrialSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1952
- Vélez v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1952