Legal Opinion

Curt v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 12, 1937PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

The sole question upon this appeal is whether a minor child, injured while working for his father, is entitled to the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Applicant left high school in 1934 and worked for his father thereafter. In June, 1935, his father made an agreement with him under which applicant was to receive sixty-five cents a hundred for drying casein and was guaranteed eighty dollars a month. He lived at the home of his parents, occasionally received presents of money, and was accustomed to do chores about the house, such as shoveling snow, cutting grass, running errands, etc.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Borgnis v. Falk Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Wick v. WickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Stetz v. F. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Menominee Bay Shore Lumber Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Prelipp v. PrelippWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Thomas v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Ortega v. Salt Lake Wet Wash LaundryUtah Supreme Court · 1945
  3. HARRY CROW & SON, INC. v. Industrial Comm.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Harry Crow & Son, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Eckhardt v. JudevineWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939

1 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