Gimbel Bros. v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
Appellants concede that there is ample evidence to support the findings. However, they contend that no finding was made as required by sec. 102.03 (1) (e), Stats., which requires a finding that the injury arose out of deceased’s employment. Appellants argue that because of the finding that the deceased had been drinking and was *299intoxicated at the time of his injury, and the intoxication of the deceased resulted in his injury and death, the inference must follow that the accident causing injury did not arise out of his employment. Clearly since the amendment in 1933 (ch. 402, Laws of 1933, now…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Racine County v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Continental Baking Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
- Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
3Cited by8 opinions
- Grant County Service Bureau, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Karlslyst v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
- Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
- Nutrine Candy Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
- Olson v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.