Industrial Commission v. McAdow
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.
Was McAdow an employe within tbe terms of tbe Workmen’s Compensation Law or was be an independent contractor? Section 1465-61, (General Code, provides that an employe shall be construed to mean “every person in tbe service of * # * any county * * * under any appointment or contract of hire.” This undoubtedly means a person employed by tbe county commissioners, acting under their supervision under circumstances where tbe commissioners could fix tbe hours of labor and could control tbe mode and manner of bis work. That it does not include an independent contractor as one operating under “a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Smith v. State Workmen's Insurance FundSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Matter of Litts v. . Risley Lumber Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Carleton v. Foundry & Machine Products Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Klar v. Erie Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1928
- Storm v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Gillum v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1943
- State ex rel. Nese v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of OhioOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- United States v. Mutual Trucking Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1944
- Behner v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1951
- Smith v. Price Bros. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1942
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.