Legal Opinion · Dissent

Croff v. Lakey Foundry & MacHine Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 5, 1948No. Docket No. 23, Calendar No. 43,802Published

1Dissent

Part 2, § 1, of Act No. 10, Pub. Acts 1912 (1st Ex. Sess.), the original enactment of the workmen's compensation act, read as follows so far as material to this case:

"If an employee * * * receives a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, * * * he shall be paid compensation." 2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8417 (Stat. Ann. § 17.151).

This provision has been amended only once (by Act No. 245, Pub. Acts 1943) and it now reads as follows:

"An employee, who receives a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, * * * shall be paid compensation." Comp. Laws…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Adams v. Acme White Lead & Color WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Hagopian v. City of Highland ParkMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Samels v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Anderson v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Kasarewski v. Hupp Motor Car Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1946

6 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