Legal Opinion

Bauer v. Rusetos & Co.

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 1923No. 14839PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Farmer

This is another action under the provisions of section 29 of the Workmen’s Compensation act which discloses the difficulties and complications that arise under that section. John Haupt was an employee of Jacob Bauer and Charles Bauer, doing business as Jacob Bauer & Son. Employer and employee were subject to the Compensation act. October 29, 1919, Haupt, while engaged in the line of his employment, was injured by a motor truck driven by a servant of Rusetos & Co., a corporation, which was also subject to the act. The Bauers brought this action under the first clause of section 29 against…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gones v. FisherIllinois Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Friebel v. Chicago City Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1917
  3. City of Taylorville v. Central Illinois Public Service Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1921

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Grasse v. Dealer's Transport Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1952
  2. American Mutual Liability Ins. v. Otis Elevator Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Petrazelli v. PropperIllinois Supreme Court · 1951
  4. State v. StarrWashington Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Wabash Water & Light Co. v. Home Telephone Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1923

3 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