TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fort v. Mahnomen Mining Co.

Richard H. Fort v. Mahnomen Mining Company and Another. [Fn1]

Fort v. Mahnomen Mining Co., 233 N.W. 245 (Minn. 1930)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 28, 1930
Docket
No. 28,104.
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
233 N.W. 245181 Minn. 5461930 Minn. LEXIS 1028

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

Certiorari to the industrial commission to review an order denying compensation.

The decision ivas that, although the relator as employe “suffered a minor accident to the right eye,” there was neither any resulting compensable disability nor expense for medical' treatment. The record presents so plainly an issue of fact that the case should not be dignified by much discussion. Relator was not sure in his own testimony just how or when he was injured. He persists in the statement that a piece of steel struck him in the eye, but he testified at one time that it happened while he was employed repairing a boiler, and at another time that the accident occurred when working on a motor. Five months after the accident and when seeking medical assistance, he admits having told the doctor that he did not know what had struck him. There is much evidence justifying the inference that relator’s loss of vision in the injured eye was due to causes extraneous to his employment by respondent mining com *547 pany. That aside, the testimony of relator himself is so uncertain and so characterized by self-contradiction, to say nothing of the opposing evidence, that an affirmative finding was by no means compelled. In that situation of course the negative result must stand.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1931: 119312026peak 1931 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co.237 N.W. 419 (Minn. 1931)

Most recent

  1. Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co.237 N.W. 419 (Minn. 1931)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list