Wisconsin Axle Division v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFritz, C. J.
The brief of the attorney general in behalf of the commission contends that the original stipulation was based on a “stipulation of settlement” and inasmuch as the word “compromise” did not appear therein, therefore, under the provisions of sec. 102.16 (1), Stats., the six-year limitation in sec. 102.17 (4) applies; and that the so-called “additional” order of January 5, 1945, had the effect of starting a new six-year period of limitation in operation, so that the *534application of the employee filed April 24, 1950, for further benefits fell within such new six-year period. It is the position of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- C. F. Trantow Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
- Metropolitan Casualty Insurance v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
- J. I. Case Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
3Cited by14 opinions
- Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of RevenueWisconsin Supreme Court · 2018
- Cook v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Chevrolet Division, General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Dunphy Boat Corp. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations BoardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Mednis v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.