Legal Opinion

Stulginski v. Waterbury Rolling Mills Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 5, 1938PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMaltbie, C. J.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a caster’s helper, as was Mike Cizauskas, who, on August 9th, 1937, was working at a casting pot ten or fifteen feet distant from the one at which the plaintiff was working. It was customary for each helper to skim dross from the top of the molten metal and pile it on the floor; at intervals also he would sweep the floor of the part of the room where he was working. The sweepings contained some oil and, when mingled with the dross, smoke would be ere ated. The compensation commissioner found that on this day the plaintiff, in accordance with a…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Madden's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  2. Larke v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
  3. Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Palumbo v. George A. Fuller Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  5. Claim of Verschleiser v. Joseph Stern & SonNew York Court of Appeals · 1920

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Fair v. People's Savings BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  2. Rawling v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  3. Dillon's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
  4. Stulginski v. CizauskasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
  5. State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952

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

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

Powered by the Exa API