Legal Opinion

Henry Haertel Service, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 9, 1933PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

The circuit court approved the holding of the Industrial Commission that at the time of injury Belknap was in the employ of appellant, performing service growing out of and incidental to such employment. Is there evidence to sustain the finding that Belknap was an- employee, or from the facts established does the conclusion follow that he was doing business in an independent capacity? There is no written contract to the terms of which we can look for light upon his relation to the company. Belknap at the time was seventy-eight years of age and during his connection with *457appellant or its…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Badger Furniture Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Madix v. Hochgreve Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Radtke Bros. & Korsch Co. v. RutzinskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Kruse v. WeigandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Waldum v. Lake Superior Terminal & Transfer Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1919

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Maltz v. Jackoway-Katz Cap Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
  2. Kassela v. HosethWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Sierra Berdecía v. Pedro A. Pizá, Inc.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1962
  4. Thurn v. La Crosse Liquor Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. BrowerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937

5 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