Legal Opinion

Hasslen v. Carlson & Hasslen

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 29, 1930No. 27,931PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Taylor, C.

The relator made an application under the workmen’s compensation law for compensation for the loss of an eye. The industrial commission found as a fact that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and denied the application. A writ of certiorari brings the case to this court. The question presented is whether the evidence established as a matter of law that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment.

John Carlson and Carl Hasslen, copartners as Carlson & Hasslen, are contractors and builders and have been engaged in that business for many…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. O'Leary v. WangensteenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  2. Engsell v. Northern Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational ChurchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
  2. Cavilla v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
  3. Rick v. NobleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
  4. Williams v. Hoyt Construction Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. First National Bank v. Van De PutteSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932

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