Legal Opinion

John H. Kaiser Lumber Co. v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 16, 1923PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrownhart, J.

To entitle an emploj^ee to compensation under the statute it is only necessary to show (1) that the *515employer and employee were subject to the act; (2) that the employee was performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment; and (3) that the injury was proximately caused by accident. The Commission found in the affirmative on each of these propositions. The findings of fact of the Industrial Commission are conclusive unless impeached for fraud or there is an entire absence of evidence to support the findings. Under the circumstances of this case, where the employee was…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hoenig v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Holt Lumber Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Village of West Salem v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Schroeder & Daly Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. CardilloCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940
  2. Breimhorst v. BeckmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
  3. Howard v. Harwood's Restaurant Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
  4. Cedar Rapids Community School v. CadySupreme Court of Iowa · 1979
  5. Jenson v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1991

29 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