Legal Opinion
Livingston v. St. Paul Hydraulic Hoist Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 27, 1938No. 31,675PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Gallagher, Chief Justice.
This proceeding is under the workmen’s compensation act. There is no dispute as to petitioner’s right to compensation, but there is a dispute as to the amount to Avhich he is entitled, and particularly as to the extent of the injury out of which the right to compensation arises.
On May 27, 1936, Ralph Livingston, in the course of his employment with the St. Paul Hydraulic Hoist Company, sustained an injury to his right eye. Employer admitted liability and paid compensation for several months as Avell as medical and hospital benefits. On June 4, 1937, employer’s insurer…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Matter of Marhoffer v. . MarhofferNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Kelley v. ProutyIdaho Supreme Court · 1934
- Cline v. Studebaker Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Claim of Frings v. Pierce Arrow Motor Car Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
- Marland Refining Co. v. ColbaughSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Lambert v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1952
- Casey v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Yureko v. Prospect Foundry Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
- Otoe Food Products Co. v. CruickshankNebraska Supreme Court · 1942
- Aerosol Corporation of the South v. JohnsonTennessee Supreme Court · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.