Gower v. Department of Conservation
Michigan Supreme Court
1DissentBushnell, J.
Can we conclude as a matter of law that the department of conservation did not have' the required notice when a finding was made by the department of labor and industry that such notice had been given?
We have held unequivocally that:
“The question of the giving of timely and sufficient notice is one of fact.” LaPorte v. Kalamazoo Stove & Furnace Co., 308 Mich. 687, 691.
In applying the statutory requirements regarding notice of the injury (2 Comp. Laws 1929, §8431 et seq., as amended by Act No. 245, Pub. Acts 1943 [Comp. Laws Supp. 1945, § 8431, Stat. Ann. and Stat. Ann. 1946 Cum. Supp. §…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hajduk v. Revere Copper & Brass, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1934
- Consumers Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1936
- Monk v. Charcoal Iron Co. of AmericaMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Littleton v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1936
- Clifton v. Chrysler Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1938
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.