Legal Opinion

Harry Crow & Son, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1963PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilkie, J.

The sole issue to be determined on this appeal is whether Norbert Crow was, as the Industrial Commission expressly found, an employee under sec. 102.07 (4), Stats.,1 of Harry Crow & Son, Inc., at the time of the accident.

*440Although we have held that the ultimate determination of employer-employee relationship under the Wisconsin Workmen’s Compensation Act is a question of law, there are questions of fact for the commission where there is room for dispute either as to facts or as to the inferences to be drawn from the facts.2

In the instant case the crucial questions on the issue of whether the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Borgnis v. Falk Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Hartford Fire Insurance v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
  3. Hartford Fire Ins. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
  4. Gant v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Scholz v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lawson v. LawsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1967
  2. State v. LIRCWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
  3. HARRY CROW & SON, INC. v. Industrial Comm.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  4. State v. Labor & Industry Review CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API