Legal Opinion

Carpenter v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 22, 1935No. 30,218PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Holt, Justice.

Certiorari to review a decision of the industrial commission.

Of these facts there is no dispute: During all the time here involved Richard Carpenter was in the employ of the Arrowhead Steel ¡Products Company. The two will hereinafter be referred to as employe and employer. Previous to December 4, 1931, and up to some time after January, 1932, the relator was the employer’s insurer against industrial accidents to its employes, and from that timé on the New Amsterdam Casualty became the insurer. On December 4, 1931, the employe received an injury from an accident arising out of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Pacific Coast Casualty Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Kill v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Peniston v. City of MarshallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
  4. Oplotnik v. Cherokee & Pittsburg Coal & Mining Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1916

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Marsolek v. Miller Waste MillsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
  2. Mund v. Farmers' Cooperative, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
  3. Haverland v. Twin City Milk Producers Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  4. Koski v. Erie Mining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  5. Quinn v. Automatic Sprinkler Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958

4 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