Legal Opinion

Rice Lake Golf Club, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1934PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberRY, C. J.

If the applicant Everson was an employee within the meaning of the compensation act, it would seem to follow as a logical conclusion from the facts *286stated, that he was performing service growing out of and incidental to that employment. Before that question can arise, it must be found that he was an employee. The term “employee” is defined by sec. 102.07, Stats., which so far as applicable, is as follows :

“ ‘Employe’ as used in this chapter means :
“(4) Every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied.” .

The facts found by the commission as well as the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Milwaukee Toy Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Neitzke v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Schanen v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Kress Packing Co. v. KottwitzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Village of West Milwaukee v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Canterbury v. Valley Bell Dairy CompanyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Lange v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Koski v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939

3 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