Schmidlkofer v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
It may be conceded as fundamental that where only one inference can reasonably be drawn from undisputed facts a question of law arises under the statute. However, it is true that even “if there is no dispute in the testimony a question of fact is presented if different inferences may be drawn, or ‘if something more than the application of a rule of law is required in order to reach a final conclusion.’ ” Hipke v. Industrial Comm. 261 Wis. 226, 231, 52 N. W. (2d) 401; Gant v. Industrial Comm. 263 Wis. 64, 56 N. W. (2d) 525. The commission found that the appellant, as well as the other members…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bartels v. BirminghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Gant v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
- Montello Granite Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Hipke v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
- Nestle's Food Co. v. Industrial Commission of WisconsinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Pabst v. Department of TaxationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Scholz v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Van Roy v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
- Larson v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Neese v. State Medical Society of WisconsinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.