Legal Opinion

La Crosse Dredging Co. v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 1936PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

The power of the Industrial Commission to award compensation is questioned, and appellants’ reasons for so doing are, among others, that the work was not local in character and that the employment was maritime in nature and therefore under the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States. A number of propositions based upon the facts of this case might be advanced, any one of which could effectively overcome appellants’ objections. A controlling one is that the work was local. Falkenberg was engaged in a dredging operation to make a new way through land. This *310type of work “as well as that done…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State Industrial Comm'n of NY v. Nordenholt Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Cleveland Terminal & Valley Railroad Co. v. Cleveland Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
  3. Swayne & Hoyt, Inc. v. BarschCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1915
  4. Claim of Seely v. Phœnix Transit Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API