Claim of Humphrey v. Tietjen & Steffin Milk Co.
236 A.D. 762
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Claim of Humphrey v. Tietjen & Steffin Milk Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 235 A.D. 470 →
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 15, 1932·Published
Opinion
Motion for reargument denied. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted and questions certified as follows: 1. Did the claimant sustain an accidental injury arising out of the employment? 2. Did the claimant sustain an accidental injury arising in the course of the employment? McNamee, J., not voting. [See 235 App. Div. 470.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Claim of Humphrey v. Tietjen & Steffin Milk Co., 236 A.D. 762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).
236 A.D. 762 (Claim of Humphrey v. Tietjen & Steffin Milk Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Claim of Humphrey v. Tietjen & Steffin Milk Co.
235 A.D. 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)