Fish v. United States Rubber Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Fish v. United States Rubber Co.

142 A.2d 63, 87 R.I. 383, 1958 R.I. LEXIS 68

DecidedMay 26, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.2d 63 (Fish v. United States Rubber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fish v. United States Rubber Co., 142 A.2d 63, 87 R.I. 383, 1958 R.I. LEXIS 68 (R.I. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal from a decree of the workmen’s compensation com[384]*384mission reversing a decree of the single commissioner in favor of the petitioner. The grounds of the motion are the same as those in D’Iorio v. United States Rubber Co., 87 R. I. 380, which were rejected by us in an opinion filed this day. Reference is made to that case for the reasons which induced us to deny the motion therein. Since there are no facts which differentiate the instant case materially from the D’Iorio case, no need exists for further discussion here except to repeat that petitioner was not required to file an additional transcript in order to perfect his appeal to this court.

Michaelson & Stanzler, Milton Stanzler, for petitioner. Ambrose W. Carroll, for respondent.

The respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal from a decree of the workmen’s compensation com[384]*384mission reversing a decree of the single commissioner in favor of the petitioner. The grounds of the motion are the same as those in D’Iorio v. United States Rubber Co., 87 R. I. 380, which were rejected by us in an opinion filed this day. Reference is made to that case for the reasons which induced us to deny the motion therein. Since there are no facts which differentiate the instant case materially from the D’Iorio case, no need exists for further discussion here except to repeat that petitioner was not required to file an additional transcript in order to perfect his appeal to this court.

Michaelson & Stanzler, Milton Stanzler, for petitioner. Ambrose W. Carroll, for respondent.

The respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.2d 63, 87 R.I. 383, 1958 R.I. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fish-v-united-states-rubber-co-ri-1958.