Legal Opinion
Davis v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided March 3, 1964PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.
The trial court’s memorandum opinion states in part as follows:
“Plaintiff reasons that under the (currenf compensation law he is entitled to recovery. His contention is that Meade vs. Wisconsin Motor Mfg. Co. (1918 168 Wis 250, 251; and McCarthy vs. Sawyer-Goodman Co. (1927) 194 Wis. 198, 203, are no longer the law in Wisconsin, specifically because pre-existing weakness or disposition to injury is no ‘bar’ to recovery and because traumatic ‘culmination’ as distinguished from traumatic ‘origin’ is sufficient to establish industrial injury.
“1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation, sec. 12.20, p. 170.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McCarthy v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
- Brown v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Brouwer Realty Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Franckowiak v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Pressed Steel Tank Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Xcel Energy Services, Inc. v. Labor & Industry Review CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 2013
- E. F. Brewer Co. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- Erickson v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- Anheuser Busch, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Bumpas v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1978
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.