Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Ueland

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 19, 1936No. 30,766PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1 Reported in 267 N.W. 517, 927. Proceedings for compensation under the workmen's compensation act.

Peter Anderson, respondent, worked for many years for Andreas Ueland as a caretaker and gardener at Mr. Ueland's home on Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis. He prepared and attended to the gardens, the plantings, the lawn, the shrubbery, and did other outside work on the premises such as the seasonal repairing and changing of screens and storm windows, etc. He lived in an upstairs room in the garage on the premises.

Respondent worked regularly on this place three days or more each week during spring,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Duluth Brewing & Malting Co. v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  2. Eichholz v. ShaftSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  3. Greischar v. St. Mary's CollegeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  4. Hebranson v. Fairmont CreamerySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
  5. Eichholz v. ShaftSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. CooperSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
  2. Jack v. Belin's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  3. State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Porter Farms, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  4. Partridge v. BlackbirdSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
  5. Petrucci v. HoganNew York Supreme Court · 1941

11 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