Claim of Mansfield v. General Adjustment Bureau

232 N.E.2d 852, 20 N.Y.2d 881, 285 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1144
New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 2, 1967·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

Order affirmed, with costs to respondent Workmen’s Compensation Board. (See, e.g., Matter of Gravest v. Tide Water Oil Sales Co., 275 N. T. 583, affg. 249 App. Div. 911; Matter of Lowery v. Riss & Co., 10 A D 2d 489, mot. for lv. to, opp. dem 8 N Y 2d 707.)

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burice, Bergan, Keating and Breitel. Judge Van Voorhis dissents and votes to reverse and to dismiss the claim in the following memorandum in which Judge Scileppi concurs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Claim of Mansfield v. General Adjustment Bureau, 232 N.E.2d 852, 20 N.Y.2d 881, 285 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1144 (N.Y. 1967).

232 N.E.2d 852 (Claim of Mansfield v. General Adjustment Bureau) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rainear v. C. J. Rainear Co.
307 A.2d 72 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1973)
Claim of Mansfield v. General Adjustment Bureau
232 N.E.2d 852 (New York Court of Appeals, 1967)