Legal Opinion
Hammons v. Franzblau
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 3, 1951No. Docket 41, Calendar 45,080PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBtxshnell, J.
Plaintiff Moe Hammons agrees with the statement of facts of the workmen’s compensation commission.
“Defendant’s business is, primarily, that of growing apples and cherries, a portion of which are sold on the premises. The plaintiff’s job involved picking apples and placing them in crates, and it is conceded that while so engaged he suffered an injury to his left leg on October 15,1949.”
Defendant Herman Franzblau, doing business as Geddes Fruit Farm, would add to this statement that the commission also found, as a matter of fact, that appellee’s “enterprise required fertilizing and tilling of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Shafer v. Parke, Davis & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Roush v. HeffelbowerMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co. v. WeinbergIdaho Supreme Court · 1927
- Carroll v. General Necessities Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1926
- People v. LabbeMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Advisory Opinion on Constitutionality of 1975 PA 227Michigan Supreme Court · 1976
- Stadle v. Township of Battle CreekMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
- Stanton v. Lloyd Hammond Produce FarmsMichigan Supreme Court · 1977
- Betts v. Ann Arbor Public SchoolsMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
- People v. BristolMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.