Forkas, Admrx. v. International Silver Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
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
- Saddlemire v. American Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- Costello v. Seamless Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
- Anderson v. LynchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
3Cited by13 opinions
- Bassett v. Stratford Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Federal Surety Co. v. PittsTexas Supreme Court · 1930
- Morgan v. Town of East HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Haugse v. Sommers Bros. Manufacturing Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1927
- McCurdy v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.