Legal Opinion

Hasenfus v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1924PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, J.

Plaintiffs urged two propositions: first, that John Hubert was not in an employment which was in the usual course of the business of the plaintiff William Hasenfus; second, that Dennis Hubert was an independent contractor.(1) Sub. (4) of sec. 2394 — 7, Stats., provides who shall be considered an employee, and excepts "any person whose employment is not in the usual course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of his employer.” The contention of plaintiffs is that the employment in which John Hubert was engaged was not one incidental to the running of an *283amusement park as usually…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Holmen Creamery Ass'n v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Village of Weyauwega v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  3. F. C. Gross & Bros. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Continental Casualty Co. v. HaynieCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
  2. Miller & Rose v. Industrial Commission of WisconsinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Unemployment Compensation Commission v. MathewsWyoming Supreme Court · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API