Matter of Davidson v. Pansy Waist Company
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mulready v. University Research Corp. (Md. 2000)
- Breland & Whitten v. Breland (Miss. 1962)
- Claim of Miller v. F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. (N.Y. 1958)
- Gibbs Steel Co. v. Industrial Commission (Wis. 1943)
- Claim for Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law of Priestley v. H. Hentz & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1931)
- Wynn v. Southern Surety Co. (Tex. App. 1930)
- Wilson v. Detroit Hockey Club, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Claim of Orpin v. D. P. Brother & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1962)
- Claim of Friedwald v. New York State Insurance Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1962)
- Claim of Seaman v. Hewlett Fire Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1959)
- Grady v. Great Southern Trucking Co. (Florida Industrial Commission 1955)
- Claim of Davis v. Newsweek Magazine (N.Y. 1953)
- Claim of Commissioner of Taxation & Finance v. Katherine Gibbs School, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1950)
- Matter of Martin v. Plaut (N.Y. 1944)
- Souza's Case (Mass. 1944)
- Claim of Lepow v. Lepow Knitting Mills, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1942)
- Claim of Hall v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1939)
- In re the Claim of Cowles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1938)
- Matter of Pisko v. Mintz (N.Y. 1933)
- Claim of Gill v. Belmar Construction Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1929)
- Matter of Giliotti v. Hoffman Catering Co. (N.Y. 1927)
- Claim of Jakeway v. John F. Bauer Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1926)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
While it may be that at the time the claimant sustained his injuries he was making himself ready to perform his regular daily work as a salesman, such preparation cannot be said to be part of his employ *585 ment and it does not appear that he might not have prepared himself in exactly the same way if engaged in any other employment or vocation. The injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.
Orders reversed and claim dismissed, with costs against State Industrial Board.
His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur.
Orders reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.