Legal Opinion

Hein v. Ludwig

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 17, 1935No. Appeal, 217PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Rhodes, J.,

The only substantive question raised by the appeal in this workmen’s compensation case is whether the claimant, at the time of the injury, was engaged in agriculture and thereby excluded from the protection of our Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Act of June 3, 1915, P. L. 777, §1 (77 PS §24), provides: “Nothing contained in any article or any section of an act, entitled the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1915, shall apply to or in any way affect any person who, at the time of injury, is engaged in domestic service or agriculture.” The title of this act reads as follows: “A…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  2. Matis v. SchaefferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. Bucher v. American Fruit Growers Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  4. Berlin v. CrawfordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Christgau v. Woodlawn Cemetery Assn.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
  2. Haas v. Brotherhood of Transportation WorkersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  3. Hagenburger v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Dost v. Pevely Dairy CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
  5. Strunk v. E. D. Huffman & SonsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941

16 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