Legal Opinion

Rusk Farm Drainage District v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1925PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.

This action was brought in the circuit court for Dane county to set aside an award of the Industrial Commission made in favor of an injured employee of the appellant, Rusk Form Drainage District. The question' presented is whether, prior to the enactment of ch. 437 of the Laws of 1923, a drainage district was an employer within the meaning of and subject to the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act.

Sec. 2394 — 4, Stats, 1921, defined employers who were subject to the provisions of the act as follows: “(1) The state, and each county, city, town, village, and school district therein. (2)…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. WeitzelSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  2. Juul v. School District of ManitowocWisconsin Supreme Court · 1918
  3. McMahon v. Lower Baraboo River Drainage DistrictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Srnka v. Joint District No. 3Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1921

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Necedah Manufacturing Corp. v. Juneau CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Clauss v. Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1943
  3. State Ex Rel. Reynolds v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Koshkonong Mud Creek Drainage District v. BodemanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  5. State v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1931

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