Legal Opinion

Glassman v. Radke

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 26, 1922No. 22,829PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Cueiam.

Proceedings for compensation granted and given by the Workmen’s Compensation Act were duly instituted before the State In*254dustrial Commission as authorized by chapter 82, p. 90, Laws 1921. The matter was referred to the referee as there provided, who after due hearing found in favor of the injured employe and compensation was duly awarded to him. There was an appeal by the defendant to the industrial commission where the findings and decision of the referee were in all things sustained. From the order to that effect, defendant, the employer, appealed to this court.

We have fully…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Rau v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  2. Peters v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
  3. State ex rel. Common School District No. 19 v. County of MowerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
  4. Thornton v. . LambethSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  5. Botsford Lumber Co. v. State of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kallgren v. C. W. Lunquist Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  2. Glassman v. RadtkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  3. McDonald v. Fulton & RunquistSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API