Legal Opinion
Bello v. Notkins
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 5, 1924PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBeach, J.
The only question argued on this appeal was whether the Superior Court erred in holding, upon the facts found, that Abraham L. Notkins was liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff as a “principal employer” within the meaning of § 5345 of the General Statutes, which is printed in the footnote.
While the finding is not explicit, the commissioner’s award involves the conclusion of fact that the house in question was not being erected by the firm of A. L. Notkins and Sons, and was being erected by Abraham L. Notkins alone. The appellant does not question the correctness of this conclusion. On…
2Cited by25 opinions
- Bogoratt v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Kasowitz v. Mutual Construction Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Fox v. Fafnir Bearing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Hoard v. Sears Roebuck Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. WallaceCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1949
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.