Stetz v. F. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
.Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county: F. 0. Eschweiler, Circuit Judge. This is an action to recover damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by tbe plaintiff while in tbe employ •of tbe defendant company. Tbe defendant is a corporation engaged in tbe manufacture •of boots and shoes in tbe city of Milwaukee. Tbe plaintiff was employed by tbe defendant, and while operating a heel-press machine be was injured.
Read the full summary
.Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county: F. 0. Eschweiler, Circuit Judge. This is an action to recover damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by tbe plaintiff while in tbe employ •of tbe defendant company. Tbe defendant is a corporation engaged in tbe manufacture •of boots and shoes in tbe city of Milwaukee. Tbe plaintiff was employed by tbe defendant, and while operating a heel-press machine be was injured. At tbe time tbe plaintiff was injured be was less than sixteen years of age and bad no permit authorizing bis employment. Tbe plaintiff went with bis…
1Opinion of the Court
The following opinion was filed March 14, 1916:
Siebeckee, J.
Are the rights of the parties to this action governed by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, secs. 2394 — 1 to 2394 — 31, Stats. 1915, inclusive? By sub. (2) of sec. 2394 — 1- of this act the term “employee” as used in the Workmen’s Compensation Law shall include “Every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, including aliens, and also including minors who are legally permitted to work under the laws of the state (who, for the purposes of section 2394 — 8, shall…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Koester v. . Rochester Candy WorksNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
- American Car & Foundry Co. v. ArmentrautIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
- Inland Steel Co. v. YedinakIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- Syneszewski v. SchmidtMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
- Strafford v. Republic Iron & Steel Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1909
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Humphrees v. Boxley Bros.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1926
- Ortega v. Salt Lake Wet Wash LaundryUtah Supreme Court · 1945
- Dusha v. Virginia & Rainy Lake Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Rock Island Coal Mining Co. v. GilliamSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
- Grand Rapids Trust Co. v. Petersen Beverage Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1922
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.