From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

C & P Telephone Co. v. Subsequent Injury Fund

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Oct 10, 1983
466 A.2d 39 (Md. 1983)

Summary

explaining mechanics of allocation between employer and Fund

Summary of this case from Subsequent Injury Fund v. Teneyck

Opinion

[No. 30, September Term, 1983.]

Decided October 10, 1983.

Certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals. (Baltimore City Court, Grady, J.).

The cause was argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ.

Philip T. McCusker for appellant.

John J. Szymanski, Assistant Attorney General, with whom was Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General, on the brief, for appellee.


The petition for writ of certiorari having been granted, the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirming the judgment of the Baltimore City Court in C P Telephone Company of Maryland v. Subsequent Injury Fund, 53 Md. App. 508, 453 A.2d 1243 (1983) is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Adkins.

Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.

Costs to be paid by the petitioner.


Summaries of

C & P Telephone Co. v. Subsequent Injury Fund

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Oct 10, 1983
466 A.2d 39 (Md. 1983)

explaining mechanics of allocation between employer and Fund

Summary of this case from Subsequent Injury Fund v. Teneyck
Case details for

C & P Telephone Co. v. Subsequent Injury Fund

Case Details

Full title:C P TELEPHONE COMPANY OF MARYLAND v . SUBSEQUENT INJURY FUND

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Oct 10, 1983

Citations

466 A.2d 39 (Md. 1983)
466 A.2d 39

Citing Cases

Collins v. State

1987); State v. Perkerol, 77 N.C. App. 292, 335 S.E.2d 60 (1985), review denied, 315 N.C. 595, 341 S.E.2d 36…

Subsequent Injury Fund v. Teneyck

250 Md. at 308, 242 A.2d at 508. See also Anchor Motor, 278 Md. at 325, 363 A.2d at 509, and C P Telephone…