Legal Opinion
Hornyak v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided May 21, 1973PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*100The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Jacobs, J.
The Appellate Division, in an unreported opinion, affirmed the denial of a workmen’s compensation award to the plaintiff; we certified on his application. 62 N. J. 188 (1972).
The plaintiff was employed as a shipper in the respondent’s distribution warehouse at Cedar Lane, Florence, N"ew Jersey. His working hours were from 9 :30 p.m. until 6 or 7 a.m., with two coffee breaks of 15 minutes each and a half hour lunch period from 1:30 to 2 a.m. He had to check in when entering the premises at 9:30 p.m. and check out when leaving the premises at 6…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hinojosa v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Schreifer v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Jordan v. Western Electric Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1970
- Whitehurst v. Rainbo Baking CompanyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1962
- Matter of Bollard v. EngelNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hornyak v. the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
- Halstead v. Johnson's TexacoSupreme Court of Iowa · 1978
- Morreale v. STATE OF NJ, CIVIL SERVICE COMM.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1979
- Plodzien v. Township of Edison Police DepartmentNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1988
- Appleby v. Civil Service Com'nNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.