Legal Opinion
Milwaukee Toy Co. v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided February 10, 1931PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.
The appellants claim that under the rule of Leigh Aitchison, Inc. v. Industrial Comm. 188 Wis. 218, 205 N. W. 806, Bayer was not an employee of the corporation and therefore not under protection of the workmen’s compensation act. The respondents claim that under the rule of Zurich G. A. & L. Ins. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 193 Wis. 32, 213 N. W. 630, and Columbia Cas. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 200 Wis. 8, 227 N. W. 292, he was such employee and under the act’s protection.
It is of course fundamental that to entitle an injured person or the dependents of a deceased person to compensation under the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Button v. HoffmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Claim of Bowne v. S. W. Bowne Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Milbrath v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Leigh Aitchison, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
- Matter of Skouitchi v. . Chic Cloak Suit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Gus Poulos and A.G.P. Marketing v. Naas Foods, Incorporated and Ranks, Hovis, McDougall Plc Group (Rhm Holdings U.S.A. Incorporated)Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Consumer's Co-Op of Walworth County v. OlsenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1988
- Jonas v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Von Herberg v. Von HerbergWashington Supreme Court · 1940
- Sprecher v. Weston's Bar, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.