Legal Opinion

Rosandich v. Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee Railroad

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 9, 1924PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVinje, C. J.

It is claimed first that there is no statutory provision for entering a judgment upon an interlocutory award. Sec. 102.18 of the Statutes of 1923 provides:

“After final hearing by said commission, it shall make and file (1) its findings upon all the facts involved in the controversy, and (2) its award, which shall state its determination as to the rights of the parties. Pending the final determination of any controversy before it, the commission shall have power after any hearing, to make interlocutory findings, orders and awards which may be enforced in the same manner as final awards.”

Sec.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Booth Fisheries Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Illinois Central Railroad v. KellyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
  3. Alexander v. Great Northern Ry. Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Perez v. Union Pac. R. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Matter of Liberti v. . the Staten Island Railway CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1918

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State Insurance Fund v. HuntIdaho Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Leventhal v. MichaelisNew York Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Pensick v. BoehmNebraska Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Stadele v. ResnickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Conda Coal Co. v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API