Claim of Muir v. Newton Falls Paper Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Muir v. Newton Falls Paper Co.

231 A.D. 769

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D. 769 (Claim of Muir v. Newton Falls Paper Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Muir v. Newton Falls Paper Co., 231 A.D. 769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole point raised on the appeal is that the award should be reversed because of the sarcasm, insinuation, ridicule and intimidations indulged in by the referee who decided the case. The case was, however, reheard by the Board and was affirmed after a careful review of the testimony. The conduct of the referee was far from decorous or judicial in his treatment of witnesses and should not pass unnoticed. In view of the clear proof of liability we do not think the reprehensible conduct of the referee would justify reversal. However, we express our disapproval of his methods of conducting the hearings. Hinman, Acting P. J., Davis, Whitmyer, Hill and Hasbrouck, JJ., concur. Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board.

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

Per Curiam.

The sole point raised on the appeal is that the award should be reversed because of the sarcasm, insinuation, ridicule and intimidations indulged in by the referee who decided the case. The case was, however, reheard by the Board and was affirmed after a careful review of the testimony. The conduct of the referee was far from decorous or judicial in his treatment of witnesses and should not pass unnoticed. In view of the clear proof of liability we do not think the reprehensible conduct of the referee would justify reversal. However, we express our disapproval of his methods of conducting the hearings. Hinman, Acting P. J., Davis, Whitmyer, Hill and Hasbrouck, JJ., concur. Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D. 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-muir-v-newton-falls-paper-co-nyappdiv-1930.