Conrad v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFritz, J.
It appears without dispute that the applicant’s husband resided in Minneapolis and specialized as an artist in painting pictures of landscapes, which he sold, and in doing-interior decorating and painting during several years for patrons in Minneapolis and Eau Claire, including the defendant, Eau Claire Hotel Company, and several other parties.
Upon evidence introduced at a hearing before an examiner of the commission, he made findings of fact upon which he concluded that under the provisions in sec. 102.07 (8), Stats., Conrad was to be considered an employee of the hotel company while at work…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Montello Granite Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Armstrong v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
- Hume v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
- J. Romberger Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
3Cited by5 opinions
- Acuity Mutual Insurance v. OlivasWisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
- Enderby v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- United Way of Greater Milwaukee, Inc. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1981
- Revels v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Acuity Mutual Insurance v. OlivasWisconsin Supreme Court · 2007