Legal Opinion

Hillman v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1926PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStevens, J.

It is not necessary for the court to determine whether applicant was engaged as a farm laborer at the *198time he sustained the injury in question. Appellant’s employer elected to accept the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act when he entered into the contract of insurance with the defendant company. Such election brought appellant, a regular member of the shredding crew, under the act even if it be held that he was a farm laborer, at the time of injury, because the intent clearly appears from the terms of the policy to insure the members of the shredding crew. Sub. (3), sec. 102.0S,…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hogue v. WurdackMissouri Court of Appeals · 1957
  2. Keeney v. BeasmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1936
  3. Heal v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Nace v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Roe v. RoeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1966

2 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