CANDADO STEVEDORING CORP. v. WILLARD

No. 47, Docket 21737.

185 F.2d 232 (1950)

CANDADO STEVEDORING CORP. v. WILLARD.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Decided November 16, 1950.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Burlingham, Veeder, Clark & Hupper, New York City (Ray Rood Allen and Benjamin E. Haller, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Frank J. Parker, U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., Nathan Borock, Brooklyn, N. Y., Ward E. Boote, Assistant Solicitor, Herbert P. Miller, U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN and FRANK, Circuit Judges.


FRANK, Circuit Judge.

We agree with the district judge. That the applicant called the paper he filed a "claim for compensation" instead of an "application" for review is of no moment. The application asking such relief was filed within the year referred to in § 22.1 Candado does not contend that it received no notice of the filing as required by § 19,2 which governs the procedure with respect to ...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases