Bloomer Brewery, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
The objection of the employer to the award is based on the ground that the employee is responsible for his being placed in a prohibited employment. That he was a party to cheating his way into the position must be admitted. It must also be admitted that good reasons exist for the expressions indulged in by the trial judge in announcing his ruling that the order should be set aside. But these reasons and respondent’s objection to the award must give way to a more cogent and controlling, ground. Back of the statute invoked lies the idea of protecting the child. The law might have been drawn…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hills Dry Goods Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- Stetz v. F. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
- Boshaw v. J. J. Newberry Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1932
- Brenner v. HerubenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
- Zurich General Accident & Liability Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Claim of Sackolwitz v. Charles Hamburg & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1946
- Halfacre v. Paragon Bridge & Steel Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1962
- Deignan v. Cowan Plastic Products Corp.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1965
- Garnhum's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1964
- Hertz Drivurself Stations, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.