Nutrine Candy Co. v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.
This case has tb do with the effect of intoxication upon the right of an employee to have compensation for injuries sustained as the proximate result of the intoxication.
Perlman, Black, and defendant, Ryan, were employees of plaintiff company. The company had called a meeting of its salesmen at Minneapolis. Black and Perlman lived in Milwaukee, drove to Madison and picked up Ryan there. They arrived in Madison about 6 o’clock in the morning and started for Minneapolis' about 7 o’clock, Black driving and Ryan sitting' beside him in the front seat. They stopped at Mauston where both Black and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Barragar v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Gimbel Bros. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
3Cited by7 opinions
- Dibble v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
- Olson v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- Heritage Mutual Insurance Co. v. LarsenWisconsin Supreme Court · 2001
- Pick 'n Save Roundy's v. Labor & Industry Review CommissionCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.