Efaw v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFritz, J.
The learned circuit judge concluded that at the time of the plaintiff Efaw’s injury he was engaged in work *139which was so closely related to interstate commerce as to be practically á part of it, and, consequently, that plaintiff and his employer were not subject to the provisions of secs. 102.03 to 102.35, Stats., and it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin to make an award for compensation. There is no conflict in the evidence as to plaintiff’s work and duties when he was injured, but the facts established by the undisputed evidence present a troublesome…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pedersen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway Co. v. SealeSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. HarringtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Erie Railroad v. CollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Erie Railroad v. SzarySupreme Court of the United States · 1920
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- Lavigne v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadAppellate Court of Illinois · 1936