Legal Opinion
Pearson v. Ford Motor Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 20, 1932No. 28,704PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
Certiorari on the relation of the Ford Motor Company to the industrial commission to review the a Avar d of compensation for the death of Victor E. Pearson, of Avhom Mary A. Pearson and her son, his stepson, Avere the beneficiaries.
The Ford company’s claims are comprehended Avithin the folloAVing:(1) That the decedent did not come to his death by a heat stroke.(2) That the actual and proximate cause of his death Avas an enlargement of the liver; and in connection thereAvith it claims chronic alcoholism.(3) That if there was a heat stroke it Avas not an accident.(4) That if an accident it did…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Lane v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- State ex rel. Peoples Coal & Ice Co. v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Walker v. Minnesota Steel Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- State ex rel. Rau v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Babich v. Oliver Iron Mining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Malone v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1942
- Gillette v. Harold, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Nelson v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- Ryan v. Industrial Accident BoardMontana Supreme Court · 1935
- Enkel v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.