Enderby v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
The statutory definition of employee for the purposes of ch. 102 includes: “Every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, ...” Where one has made a contract to render service for another, the latter must have the right under the contract to control the details of the work if the former is to be an employee. Woodside School Dist. v. Industrial Comm. (1942), 241 Wis. 469, 471, 6 N. W. (2d) 182.
Mrs. Enderby, and the other ladies, responded to a request by the pastor, and performed valuable services for the church. The Mission Society furnished the ladies…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gant v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
- Scholz v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Montello Granite Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Habrich v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
- Johnson v. Wisconsin Lumber & Supply Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Higgins v. Monroe Evening NewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
- Usgaard v. Silver Crest Golf ClubSupreme Court of Iowa · 1964
- HARRY CROW & SON, INC. v. Industrial Comm.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Borneman v. Corwyn Transport, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1997
- Camphill Village, U.S.A., Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation BoardNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.