Legal Opinion · Dissent
Vaivida v. City of Grand Rapids
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided August 29, 1933No. Docket No. 85, Calendar No. 37,067Published
1Dissent
Plaintiff, while working for the city of Grand Rapids, was injured, and has been awarded workmen's compensation. The city reviews the award. Plaintiff is not represented by counsel. The question is whether plaintiff was an employee of the city, within 2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8413:
"Every person in the service of the State, or of any county, city, township, incorporated village, or school district therein, under any appointment, or contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, except any official of the State, or of any county, city, township, incorporated village, or school district…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- County of Monterey v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Industrial Commission v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1930
- California Highway Commission v. Industrial Accident CommissionnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Stiles v. Des Moines Council Boy Scouts of AmericaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1930
- Blust v. Sisters of MercyMichigan Supreme Court · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.