Legal Opinion

Solazco v. Carol

New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau

Decided May 18, 1936PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This matter comes before me on a motion made by the respondent to dismiss the petition filed on January 2d, 1936, upon the ground that the workmen’s compensation bureau is without jurisdiction to entertain the same because the previous award therein was a final adjudication on the merits and a bar to any further right of recovery under the act.

In addition to oral argument which was presented at the hearing on the motion on February 7th, 1936, counsel have submitted briefs which have been carefully examined by me.

Briefly stated the material facts are essentially as follows: *436Petitioner met with…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Herbert v. Newark Hardware & Plumbing Supply Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1930
  2. McLaughlin v. Hahne & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
  3. Ecken v. O'BrienSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1935
  4. Clements v. ArrowsmithNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932
  5. Federated Metals Corp. v. BoykoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1933

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ruoff v. BlasiSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1936
  2. Horowitz v. Rothenberg Hat Co., New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API