Neylon v. Ford Motor Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Oueiam.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed by an equally divided court.
Vanbeebilt, C. J.
We are told that there are other cases being held awaiting the outcome of this 'appeal. So that my vote here may not be misinterpreted I deem it necessary to state briefly my position with respect to the so-called “unusual strain or exertion” doctrine.
In eases such as the one here before us where the injury is orthopedic and presumptively traumatic, I am of the opinion that proof of unusual strain or exertion is not required by the workmen’s compensation laws. It is for this reason that I joined in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Purity Biscuit Co. v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1949
- Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. DanielsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
- Gray's Hatchery & Poultry Farms, Inc. v. StevensSuperior Court of Delaware · 1950
- Walter v. HagianisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1952
- Pan American Airways, Inc. v. WillardDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1951
3Cited by20 opinions
- Broadwell Realty Services, Inc. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of NYNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1987
- Allen v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1986
- Alabama Textile Products Corporation v. GranthamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
- Southern Cotton Oil Company v. WynnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1957
- Russo v. TEACHERS'PENSION AND ANNUITY FUNDSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.