Legal Opinion

Wendlandt v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1949PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

The respondent Wendlandt is the owner and operator of the Marshfield Golf Club. Pie did not hire, pay, or regulate the fees of caddies. He knew that players used caddies and that boys were on the course seeking employment as caddies from patrons, who paid the caddy for his services. When the appellant Melcher acted as a caddy, he was never paid except by the person for whom he caddied. Apparently the only conversations he had with respondent were to the effect that he was told he would have to get a labor permit if he wanted to caddy. Nothing of the kind was procured, but appellant did hand…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Wisconsin Inspection Bureau v. WhitmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Employers' L. A. Corp. v. Indus. Acc. Com.California Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Booth Fisheries Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Gagnon v. Department of Agriculture & MarketsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Chappy v. Labor & Industry Review CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Metropolitan Utilities District v. Merritt Beach Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Omernick v. Department of Natural ResourcesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Acuity Mutual Insurance v. OlivasWisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Baker v. LeenhoutsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950

16 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