Legal Opinion
Claim of Christiansen v. Hill Reproduction Co
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 2, 1941PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
Claimant, the widow of Harold Christiansen, deceased, has appealed from a decision of the State Industrial Board denying her claim for death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
The facts are undisputed. Where, as here, compensation is claimed for accidental death and the facts are not in controversy, the issue whether the deceased received injuries which arose out of and in the course of his employment becomes a question of law.
On September 25, 1939, and for about ten years prior thereto, claimant’s husband was employed by respondent Hill Reproduction Company as a salesman in the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Claim of Katz v. A. Kadans & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Palmer v. MainCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1925
- Matter of Wakefield v. World-TelegramNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Claim of Wakefield v. World-TelegramAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Matter of Thomas v. United States Trucking CorporationNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
3Cited by17 opinions
- Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. WattsMississippi Supreme Court · 1952
- Scherr v. Siding & Roofing Sales CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1957
- Claim of Bauss v. Consolidated Chimney Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
- Welz v. Markel Service, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
- Claim of Santos v. GuemesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.