Legal Opinion

Peterson v. Sorensen

Utah Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 1937No. 5476PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MOFFAT, Justice.

This is an action to recover damages for alleged injury based upon claimed negligence. The plaintiff, while in the employ of the defendant during December, 1928, claims to have been injured. The defendant was engaged in the retail furniture business in Salt Lake City. It is conceded that he regularly employed more than three men and was, therefore, subject to the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (R. S. 1933, 42-1-1 et seq.). The defendant was not carrying compensation insurance as required by the act. Neither had he qualified as a self-insurer. Plaintiff alleges…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. State v. BarrettaUtah Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Van Straaten v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1899
  3. Utah Consol. Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission of UtahUtah Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Gay v. Hocking Coal Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1918
  5. State v. BlissWashington Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Masich v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1948
  2. In Re Swan's EstateUtah Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Ortega v. Salt Lake Wet Wash LaundryUtah Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Lewis v. MoultreeUtah Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Martin v. La MotteNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1951

8 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