Legal Opinion

Miller & Rose v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1928PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrownhart, J.

The facts are not in dispute. The defendant Fern Rich is the widow of Harry Rich, who accidentally met his death while giving an exhibition termed the “slide for life.” Deceased was engaged by the plaintiffs Miller & Rose to give his exhibition at the State Fair Amusement Park at Milwaukee, July 1, 1925. Rich was a professional entertainer, going from place to place. The contract was made by correspondence, in writing. Rich was to give his act three times a day for one week, for $375. He» was to bear his own expense, perform his act in his own way, from apparatus furnished by himself, and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Village of Weyauwega v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Leigh Aitchison, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Madix v. Hochgreve Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Ronning v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Hasenfus v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Eric Brant v. Schneider National Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2022
  2. Tesch v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Badger Furniture Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Kolman v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Kruse v. WeigandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931

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