State ex rel. Lundgren v. District Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Upon the relation of Viktor Lundgren the supreme court granted its writ of certiorari directed to the district court for Washington county and the Honorable J. N. Searles, judge thereof, to review proceedings in that court under the Workmen’s Compensation Act brought by relator, as employee, against Inter-State Lumber Company, as employer.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, C. J.
Proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, in which the trial court held that plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the reason, as found by the court, that the employment in which plaintiff was en*84gaged at the time of his injury was not “in the usual course of defendant’s business.” Judgment was ordered and entered accordingly and plaintiff sued out a writ of certiorari to review the same.
In stating the facts in the case, which are not in dispute, we refer to the interested parties as plaintiff and defendant; plaintiff being the employee and defendant the employer.
Defendant is a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Uphoff v. Industrial BoardIllinois Supreme Court · 1915
- State ex rel. Duluth Brewing & Malting Co. v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- State ex rel. Virginia & Rainy Lake Co. v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Holbrook v. Olympia Hotel Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
- W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- D. M. Rose & Co. v. SnyderTennessee Supreme Court · 1947
- Callihan v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- National Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. HigginbothamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Purdy v. LivingstonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1977
- Lackey v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1926
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.