Legal Opinion
Suess v. Arrowhead Steel Products Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 28, 1930No. 27,760PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Olsen, C.
The matter contained in the supplemental record printed and filed by the defendant is stricken on motion of plaintiff.
Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial. He brings the action to recover damages for injury to his health, claiming that while in the employ of the defendant for a period of some six years as superintendent and inspector of its factory defendant failed to comply with G~. S. 1923 (1 Mason, 1927) § 4174, and that by reason thereof he contracted tuberculosis, from which he is now suffering. This disease does not come within the workmen’s…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Boldt v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo BrotherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Schaar v. ConforthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Donnelly v. Minneapolis Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Christensen v. Hennepin Transportation Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- Finnegan v. Royal Realty Co.California Supreme Court · 1950
- Armstrong v. MailandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Zerby v. WarrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Mechler v. McMahonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.