Legal Opinion
Wishcaless v. Hammond, Standish & Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided March 28, 1918No. Docket No. 35PublishedCited by 19 opinions
Certiorari to Industrial Accident Board. Mary Wishcaless presented her claim for compensation against Hammond, Standish & Company for the accidental death of' her husband in defendant’s .employ. From an order awarding compensation, defendant brings certiorari.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
This is certiorari to review an order of the industrial accident board on the claim of Mary Wishcaless against Hammond, Standish & Company, for compensation because of the death of her husband. Counsel say:
“The record presents the question whether there was an accident, and if so, whether it arose out of and in the course of Wishcaless’ employment by Hammond, Standish & Company. Liability was denied on these grounds at the time of the arbitration” and is now denied for the same reason.
Frank Wishcaless had been employed for five years *194by Hammond, Standish & Company, at its plant at Detroit,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Travellers' Insurance v. McConkeySupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Mallory v. . the Travelers' Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Reck v. WhittlesbergerMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Rayner v. Sligh Furniture Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Freeman v. Travelers' InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Mailman's CaseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1919
- Hopson v. Hungerford Coal Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1948
- Sullivan v. Suffolk Peanut Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1938
- Chaudier v. Stearns & Culver Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1919
- Czuczko v. Golden-Gary Co., Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1931
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.