Legal Opinion

Warhelm v. Melrose Granite Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 19, 1924No. 24,228PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.

Certiorari in a workman’s compensation case where the employe was allowed full compensation for loss of an eye. Admittedly the proper award were it not for these facts: The employe is a granite cutter. A little more than one year previous to the accident here involved, the same eye was accidently injured and the eyesight therein so impaired that a settlement was made between him, his then employer and the latter’s insurer, whereby he was to receive the full amount allowable under the law for total loss of the use of an eye. However, its vision was not wholly destroyed. He could see to read…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Purchase v. Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Mark Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Garwin v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  4. Jennings v. Mason City Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1919
  5. Hessley v. Minneapolis Steel Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Kraushar v. Cummins Construction Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1942
  2. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Bata Shoe Co. v. ChvojanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
  4. McKenzie v. Gulf Hills Hotel, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Shaughnessy v. Diamond Iron WorksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926

3 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