Legal Opinion

White v. Arnold Wood Heel Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided October 3, 1939No. 3093PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.

As originally worded the Compensation Act, (P. L., c. 178, s. 1), applied “only to workmen engaged in manual or mechanical labor” in the employments enumerated, one of which was, (par. ii), “Work in any shop, mill, factory or other place on, in connection with or in proximity to, any hoisting apparatus, or any machinery propelled or operated by steam or other mechanical power in which shop, mill, factory or other place five or more persons are engaged in manual or mechanical labor.” These words, we recently held, were not broad enough to extend the benefits of the act to a clerk in a retail…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Boody v. K. & C. Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
  2. Davis v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
  3. Brown v. Conway Electric Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
  4. White v. Boulia-Gorrell Lumber Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Home Insurance Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976
  2. M. E. Badon Refrigeration Co. v. BadonMississippi Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Curran v. Security Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1961
  4. Estes v. LeathersSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1946
  5. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Home Insurance Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API