Legal Opinion
Wiest v. Bolduc
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided October 18, 1929No. 27,402PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
Certiorari to review the order of the industrial commission allowing compensation to Alexander Wiest for injuries sustained while in the employ of the relators LeRoy A. and L. H. Bolduc, copartners as L. H. Bolduc & Company. The relator Royal Indemnity Company is the insurer.
It is provided by Gr. S. 1923 (1 Mason, 1927) § 4326(j), as follows:
“(j) Without otherwise affecting either the meaning or interpretation of the abridged clause ‘personal injuries ar-ising out of and in the course of employment.’ It is hereby declared:
“Not to cover workmen except while engaged in, on, or about the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Donovan's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Nesbitt v. Twin City Forge & Foundry Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Jotich v. Village of ChisholmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Rosvall v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- State ex rel. Jacobson v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- Radermacher v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- Markoff v. Emeralite Surfacing Products Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
- Bonfig v. Megarry Brothers, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Gehrke v. WeissSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.