Legal Opinion

Foster v. Schmahl

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 26, 1936No. 30,850PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hilton, Justice.

Certiorari to review an order of the industrial commission denying appellant compensation from the special compensation fund provided for in the workmen’s compensation act for those sustaining total permanent disability.

Appellant claims that as a result of two injuries to his eyes, one sustained in 1923 and the other in 1925, while in the employ of the village of Hibbing, he has become totally and permanently disabled. Appellant is about 70 years of age. He Avas a painter by trade, although he had done work of other types during the last ten years.

The only question we need…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Manley v. Harvey Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  2. Travelers' Ins. v. RichmondTexas Commission of Appeals · 1927
  3. Erving v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  4. Reilley v. CarrollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
  5. Butch v. ShaverSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Lambert v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Yureko v. Prospect Foundry Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
  3. Otoe Food Products Co. v. CruickshankNebraska Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Piper v. Kansas Turnpike AuthoritySupreme Court of Kansas · 1968
  5. Livingston v. St. Paul Hydraulic Hoist Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1938

4 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