Legal Opinion
Erdberg v. United Textile Print Works
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 5, 1926PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtH. T. Kellogg, J.
The employer, in the course of the business of printing muslins, uses certain cloths known as “ grays.” The muslins to be printed are placed on tables covered with the grays. The grays are designed to take up the surplus color which passes through the muslins in the course of the printing operation. It is necessary to wash the grays frequently. For this purpose a large tank or vat is provided which is filled with hot water. There is a reel at the top, through which the grays pass. Sometimes the cloths, which are fifteen to twenty yards in length, get “ stuck ” and have to be pulled and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Claim of Macechko v. Bowen Manufacturing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
- Claim of Yodakis v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
- Matter of Rendino v. . Continental Can CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- McQuivey v. International Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Ebberman v. Walther & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
3Cited by8 opinions
- Greene v. NYC SOC SERVS.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Salt Lake City v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1943
- Taub v. New York Board of Fire UnderwritersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- Claim of Hyatt v. United States Rubber Reclaiming Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Bull Insular Line, Inc. v. SchwartzDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1938
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.