Legal Opinion

Wilhelm v. Angell, Wilhelm & Shreve

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1931No. Docket No. 29, Calendar No. 35,009PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNorth, J.

The following statement of facts and of the issue involved is taken from appellant’s brief. Appellees agree it is substantially correct, and we think fairly presents the question for review:

“This action arises out of the claim made by the plaintiff, Ina M. Wilhelm, for compensation under the workmen’s compensation law (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8407 et seq.) in behalf of herself and her dependent son, on account of'the death of her husband, Eugene B. Wilhelm, who was employed by the defendant, Angell, Wilhelm & Shreve, a firm of architects and engineers having offices in the Book Building,…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Claim of Katz v. A. Kadans & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
  2. Haddock v. Edgewater Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  3. Holland-St. Louis Sugar Co. v. ShralukaIndiana Court of Appeals · 1917
  4. Kunze v. Detroit Shade Tree Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Empire Health & Accident Insurance v. PurcellIndiana Court of Appeals · 1921

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Chrysler v. Blue Arrow Transport LinesMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Bush v. ParmenterMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Simkins v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Howard v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Stark v. LE Myers CompanyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975

18 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