Legal Opinion

Fultz v. Lange

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 16, 1941PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The following opinion was filed May 20, 1941.: .

RosenbeeRY, C. J.

The facts respecting the employment of the defendant Lange' by Patek Brothers, Inc., are not in dispute. Lange was employed by Patek Brothers, Inc., as a traveling salesman. His route covered a part of northeastern Wisconsin and a part of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Pie was employed on a full-time basis on a straight salary, covered his territory in his own car, was paid the expenses of travel, including his meals and lodging while away from home. Plis salary was paid semimonthly and his expenses weekly. Lange lived in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Barragar v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  2. State ex rel. McCarthy Bros. v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
  3. Schmiedeke v. Four Wheel Drive Auto Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. HeywardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
  2. Estate of Murray v. Travelers Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1999
  3. Sample v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1959
  4. Robert B. Bejma v. Dental Development And Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1966
  5. Horace K. Guthrie, Administrator of the Estate of Jennie K. Guthrie, Deceased v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1968

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