Legal Opinion

Beem v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 1943PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFaiechild, J.

The proof under which the Industrial Commission is to act must be based on competent legal evidence, and must amount to something more than a mere guess, conjecture, or surmise. 2 Jones, Evidence (2d eel.), p. 945, sec. 520. The problem of the cogency of an inference “involves (as all other judicial inferences do) the question how many and what other hypotheses there are which explain away the evidential fact,” asserted as due to some other cause than the one described. 3 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), p. 362, sec. 874. The decision of the Industrial Commission disallowing a claim is not to be…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hills Dry Goods Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Gores v. GraffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Anderson v. Chicago Brass Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Berg v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Pelitier v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1894

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Fitz v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Cutler-Hammer, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Bumpas v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Johnston v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Molinaro v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956

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

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

Powered by the Exa API