Imre v. Florence Pipe Foundry and Machine Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Imre v. Florence Pipe Foundry and Machine Co.

169 A. 817, 112 N.J.L. 197, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 257

DecidedJanuary 5, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A. 817 (Imre v. Florence Pipe Foundry and Machine Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Imre v. Florence Pipe Foundry and Machine Co., 169 A. 817, 112 N.J.L. 197, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 257 (N.J. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, affirming a judgment of the workmen’s compensation bureau, awarding compensation for the death of petitioner’s husband, which occurred while he was engaged in the service of his employer. The sole question is whether the petitioner sustained the burden of establishing that her husband’s death was the result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. The deputy commissioner determined this issue in favor of the petitioner, and Mr. Justice Bodine reached a like conclusion. There was evidence sufficient to warrant a finding for the petitioner on the issue, and in that situation an affirmance is required.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Ohancelloe, Chief Justice, Tkenchabd, Passes, Lloyd, Case, Donges, Hehee, Peeskie, Yan Buskikk, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, Dill, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Cubiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, affirming a judgment of the workmen’s compensation bureau, awarding compensation for the death of petitioner’s husband, which occurred while he was engaged in the service of his employer. The sole question is whether the petitioner sustained the burden of establishing that her husband’s death was the result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. The deputy commissioner determined this issue in favor of the petitioner, and Mr. Justice Bodine reached a like conclusion. There was evidence sufficient to warrant a finding for the petitioner on the issue, and in that situation an affirmance is required.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Ohancelloe, Chief Justice, Tkenchabd, Passes, Lloyd, Case, Donges, Hehee, Peeskie, Yan Buskikk, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, Dill, JJ. 15.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A. 817, 112 N.J.L. 197, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imre-v-florence-pipe-foundry-and-machine-co-nj-1934.