COON
v.
KENNEDY

U.S. | 1919-01-13
No. 398
248 U.S. 457 Supreme Court of the United States (1919) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 63 L. Ed. 358 · 39 S. Ct. 146 · 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2292 · SCDB 1918-213
Cited by 3 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Rebecca Coon sought workers' compensation benefits under New Jersey law for her husband's death by drowning while employed on a tugboat in navigable waters, but the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals denied relief, holding that maritime law rather than state workers' compensation law governed the claim based on the Supreme Court's decision in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the case did not involve a substantial federal question meeting the requirements for Supreme Court review.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McReynolds.

Memorandum opinion by

Mr. Justice McReynolds.

This writ of error runs to a judgment of the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey filed March 11, 1918, 91 N. J. L. 598, denying relief to Rebecca Coon who sued to recover under the New Jersey Workmen’s Compensation Act on. account of her husband’s death by drowning in the navigable waters of that State whik employed as a fireman on a tug boat.

The court held that as the accident occurred August 4, 1915, the Act of Congress approved October 6,1917, c. 97, 40 Stat. 395, “saving ... to claimants the rights and remedies under the workmen’s compensation law of any State” was inapplicable, and that under the doctrine announced in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, the rights of the parties depended upon the maritime law of the United States.

There was no decision against the validity of a treaty or statute of or an authority exercised under the United States, nor in favor of the validity of a statute of or an authority exercised under a State challenged because of repugnance to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States. Consequently, under the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726, the writ of error was improperly sued out and must be

Dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • W. Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1921)
  • Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Davis, 251 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1920)
    …y of a statute of,, or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant 'to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United Statés.” Judicial Code, §237.; Act, September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726; Coon v. Kennedy, 248 U. S. 457; Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, ante, 179. The trial court, proceeding without jury, gave judgment. for rentals due the Linotype Company under written lease of a machine, etc. The Springfield Court of Appels affirmed that action. Thereupon the Supreme…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw