Hagopian v. City of Highland Park
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
The award of the department should be set aside. Mr. Justice BUSHNELL in writing for affirmance states the main question as follows:
"Does the workmen's compensation law* as now amended by Act No. 245, Pub. Acts 1943, permit compensation under the facts stated?"
The opinion of the department does not detail all of the facts, nor do we know how much of the testimony unfavorable to plaintiff was believed. The cans, containing waste paper and street rubbish, were lifted by plaintiff and another man to a third man on the truck. Besides the third man on the truck, there was a driver. There was…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Madden's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Adams v. Acme White Lead & Color WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- La Veck v. Parke, Davis & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
- McCormick Lumber Co. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1941
- Schroetke v. Jackson-Church Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Sheppard v. Michigan National BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
- Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1986
- Underwood v. National Motor Castings Division, Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1951
- Arnold v. Ogle Construction Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1952
- Rakestraw v. General Dynamics Land Systems, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.