Cardinal v. Prudential Insurance Co. of North America
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
The proceeding is under the workmen’s compensation act, G. S. 1923 (1 Mason, 1927) § 4261, et seq.
Section 4268 provides that the act shall not apply to “domestic servants, farm laborers or persons whose employment at the time of the injury is casual, and not in the usual course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of his employer.”
The term “employer” is defined in § 4326(d) ; and the term “employe” is defined in § 4326(g), subds. (1) and (2). Further definition is unnecessary for our present purpose.
The defendants make two general claims:(1) That the plaintiff, Cardinal, was an…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- State ex rel. City of Northfield v. District Court of Rice CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Billmayer v. SanfordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Sink v. PharaohSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational ChurchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
- Christopherson v. Security State Bank of OkleeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1959
- Garrison v. GortlerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1944
- Bergstrom v. BrehmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- Fisher v. ManzkeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.