Legal Opinion
Purdy v. City of Sault Ste. Marie
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 21, 1915No. Docket No. 93PublishedCited by 15 opinions
Certiorari to the Industrial Accident Board. William Purdy presented his claim for compensation under the workmen’s compensation act for injuries sustained as an employee of the city of Sault St. Marie. An order was entered awarding compensation. The award is reviewed by the said city on certiorari.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
The claimant, Purdy, was employed by the city of Sault Ste. Marie as a street sweeper. He was run down and injured by a conveyance using the street. An award by arbitrators, approved by the Industrial Accident Board, is questioned in this proceeding, the contentions of the city being:
*575“I. Act No. 10, Pub. Acts 1912, Extra Session, does not apply to municipalities, and appellant is not subject to its provisions.
“II. Said Act No. 10 is compulsory as applied to municipalities and therefore in violation of article II section 1 of the Constitution of Michigan.
“III. To compel payment of compensation…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wood v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
3Cited by15 opinions
- Cooke v. Holland Furnace Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
- Scott M Cain v. Waste Management IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
- Shafer v. Parke, Davis & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Franks v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- Herbert v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.