Werner v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.
There is practically no dispute in the evidence. Questions of law are presented by the appeal. Sec. 102.07, Stats., defines “employee.” The plaintiff claimant cannot be an employee within the meaning of sub. (4) of sec. 102.07 for the reason that he is a public officer and cannot have an interest in any contract of hire with the municipality of which he is an officer. Henry v. Dolen, 186 Wis. 622, 203 N. W. 369. Sec. 102.07 (1), Stats. 1929, defines “employee” as follows:
“Every person in the service of the state, or of any county, city, town, village, or school district therein under any…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Columbia Casualty Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
- Beyer v. Town of CrandonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Henry v. DolenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
- Mulvaney v. Town of ArmstrongWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
3Cited by8 opinions
- Aleksich v. Industrial Accident FundMontana Supreme Court · 1944
- National Surety Corp. v. KempMississippi Supreme Court · 1953
- Degray v. Miller Bros. Con. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1934
- Fritz v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- Koski v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.