Legal Opinion

Milwaukee Malleable & Grey Iron Works v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1936PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The following opinion was filed December 3, 1935 :

RoseNBERRY, C. J.

It is conceded by both sides as the law stood prior to the amendment of 1933, claimant was not entitled to an award for the reason stated in Zurich Gen. Acc. & L. Ins. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 203 Wis. 135, 233 N. W. 772, and North End Foundry Co. v. Industrial Comm. 217 Wis. 363, 258 N. W. 439.

Sec. 102.01 (2), Stats., was amended by the legislature in 1933 (chs. 314 and 402) to read as follows :

“ 'Act’ as used in this chapter means ‘chapter‘compensation’ means workmen’s compensation; ‘injury’ is mental or physical harm to an…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  2. North End Foundry Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Green Bay Drop Forge Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Montello Granite Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Schaefer & Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Montreal Mining Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Zabkowicz v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953

4 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