Legal Opinion

Clausen v. Dinnebeil

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided September 20, 1940PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

In this compensation case the bureau and the reviewing court are in sharp disagreement — the bureau having allowed compensation and the Pleas, on appeal, reversed and dismissed the petition. This court allowed certiorari and the single disputed question is whether petitioner, Clausen, was an employe within the meaning of the statute — B. S. 34:15-36— which, so far as pertinent here, reads as follows:

“* * * ‘employee’ is synonymous with servant, and includes all natural persons who perform service for another for financial consideration, exclusive of casual employments, which shall be defined,…

2Cited by12 opinions

  1. Pollack v. Pino's Formal WearNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1992
  2. Sommerville v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Condon v. SmithNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
  4. Fitzpatrick v. HabermanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
  5. Zurich Insur. Co. v. FriedlanderCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971

7 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