Legal Opinion

Forkas, Admrx. v. International Silver Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 1, 1924PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeach, J.

The memorandum of the Commissioner attached to the finding, suggests a doubt as to whether, under § 5355, he had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim presented by this application. We think he had. It is true that § 5355 carries the limited subtitle “Revision of awards,” and for the most part deals with the modification of awards and voluntary agreements; but the last sentence confers a larger jurisdiction, for it provides that “the compensation commissioner shall retain jurisdiction over claims for compensation, awards and voluntary agreements, for any proper action thereon, during…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Saddlemire v. American Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
  2. Costello v. Seamless Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  3. Anderson v. LynchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Bassett v. Stratford Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  2. Federal Surety Co. v. PittsTexas Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Morgan v. Town of East HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  4. Haugse v. Sommers Bros. Manufacturing Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1927
  5. McCurdy v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993

8 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