Legal Opinion
Minnie v. Port Huron Terminal Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 10, 1934No. Docket No. 85, Calendar No. 37,945PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWiest, J.
Plaintiff was a longshoreman, employed by defendant terminal company in unloading a vessel at Port Huron. While upon the deck of the vessel and about his work he was struck by a swinging hoist, lifting cargo from a hatch, precipitated to the wharf and injured. This is an appeal in the nature of certiorari from an award to plaintiff under the workmen’s compensation law.
Defendant contends that the accident was upon navigable water and, therefore, not within the provisions of the compensation law of this State (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8407 et seq.).
The commission found that the injury must have…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Crowell v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Washington v. W. C. Dawson & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Minnie v. Port Huron Terminal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Conservation Department v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1952
- Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of ClevelandCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1971
- St. John v. ThomsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1936
- Executive Jet Aviation, Inc., and Executive Jet Sales, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, Ohio and Phillip A. Schwenz, and Third-Party Howard E. Dicken v. United States of America, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.