Legal Opinion

Pensick v. Boehm

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided November 4, 1932No. 28534PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.

This is a proceeding under the workmen’s compensation law in which the employee appeals from an order of the district court, dismissing his petition for compensation.

The burden of proof is upon the claimant, under the workmen’s compensation law, to prove the employment and accidental injury arising out of and in the course of the employment. Rosandich v. Chicago, N. S. & M. R., 185 Wis. 184; Hills v. Blair, 182 Mich. 20; 2 Schneider, Workmen’s Compensation Law (2d ed.) 1863.

The accident causing the injury for which compensation is sought must be one arising out of and in. the course of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hills v. BlairMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Gale v. Krug Park Amusement Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Rosandich v. Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Saxton v. Sinclair Refining Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Hammond v. KeimNebraska Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Bell v. DentonNebraska Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Porter v. Brinn-Jensen Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Metropolitan Dining Room v. JensenNebraska Supreme Court · 1934

1 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