Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Lowe v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1936No. File No. 6390PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBurr, J.

The plaintiff was employed by the owner of a combine who had contracted to harvest and thresh the crops of a farmer. It is evident the cutting and threshing were all one process because of the machine used. AA7hile so working the plaintiff was injured and now seeks to recover compensation from the workmen’s compensation fund.

This matter is before us on demurrer to the complaint and requires the construction of the term “hazardous employment” as defined in 369a2 of the Supplement, wherein those “employed in agriculture” are excepted from the hazardous employments governed by the workmen’s…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Cook v. MasseyIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
  2. In re BoyerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1917
  3. Hill v. Georgia Casualty Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1932
  4. Sylcord v. HornSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
  5. Dillard v. WebbSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Cowiche Growers, Inc. v. BatesWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Florida Industrial Commission v. Growers Equipment Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1943
  3. United States v. Turner Turpentine Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1940
  4. Town of Lincoln v. MurphyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  5. Worthington v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Iowa · 1955

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API