Legal Opinion

W. R. Grace & Co. v. Marshall

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided February 11, 1931No. 423PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCushman, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

The compensation order, as appears from the foregoing, is attacked by the bill of complaint on two grounds:

First, that the inhalation of ore dust was not the cause of claimant’s disabled condition.

Second, that at the time of the third hearing his condition had improved since the previous hearing, that is, he had recovered.

Although it has been held in the Fifth circuit that the District Court should try such cases de novo (Crowell v. Benson, 45 F.(2d) 66) such is not the rule in this circuit. Northwestern Stevedoring Co. v. Marshall, 41 F.(2d) 28. See, also,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wheeling Corrugating Co. v. McManigalCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930
  2. Northwestern Stevedoring Co. v. MarshallCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
  3. Crowell v. BensonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1930
  4. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining & Molasses Co. v. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1930

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Flamm v. WillardDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1954
  2. Thomas v. EinbinderCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1962
  3. Thomas v. EinbinderCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API