State ex rel. Cleveland Engineering Construction Co. v. Duffy

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 389
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State ex rel. Cleveland Engineering Construction Co. v. Duffy. Read the opinion of the Court — 113 Ohio St. 96
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1925·No. No. 18896·Published

Opinion

DAY. J.

Where parties desiring to be controlled by the Workmen’s Compensation Act have contracted with reference thereto and its application will not work prejudice to any characteristic features of the general maritime law or interfere with the proper harmony or uniformity of that law in its international or interstate relations, such application will not be denied even though the service of the employe is rendered on “floating vessels in navigable waters,” engaged in building docks, jetties, dredging, driving piles, laying pipes for' gas- and water, building water works cribs and similar work.

Demurrer overruled.

Marshall, C. J., Jones. Matthias- Allen. Kin-kade and Robinson. JJ., concur.

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

State ex rel. Cleveland Engineering Construction Co. v. Duffy, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 389 (Ohio 1925).

3 Ohio Law. Abs. 389 (State ex rel. Cleveland Engineering Construction Co. v. Duffy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.