Dahley v. Ely & Walker
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1975, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Williams v. Hoyt Construction Co., Inc. (Minn. 1975)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Certiorari to the industrial commission to review an order denying compensation.
The relator-employe is a traveling salesman. He was injured in an accident to his automobile sometime between one and two a. m. on Sunday, September 9,1934. The determinative question, whether the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment, was determined adversely to him by the commission. We cannot disturb *429 their conclusion for the simple reason that we cannot disagree with their expressed view that the preponderance of the evidence is against relator.
Earlier in the evening relator had been at a roadhouse where he admits having indulged in 3.2 per cent beer. There is testimony that immediately after the accident an empty liquor bottle was found in his car. There were other indicia of intoxication. His claim is that at the time of the accident he wras on the way to visit, on Sunday morning, a customer at Blue Earth, some 40 miles from Mankato. He had no appointment with that patron. Moreover, leaving Mankato he did not take the direct road to Blue Earth, but another. His headquarters were in Mankato. To the commission his explanation of having taken the wrong road does not seem to have rung true. The whole of relator’s testimony was not of the sort to compel belief. That is always unfortunate for any witness upon whom alone is the burden of proof.
In this connection it should be noted that the evidence is not properly before us. It is certified by the stenographic reporter rather than by the secretary and under the seal of the industrial commission as required by 1 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 4320.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.