Kroll v. Reeser

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that injured worker was “obviously an employee,” with question being his employer’s identity
• remanding for Board to evaluate whether four-plex owner who planned to rent out three units was “employer” under Act
• inquiring whether construction activity was homeowner “cost-cutting shortcut” in consumptive role or part of homeowner “profit­ making enterprise” in productive role
• remanding for Board to consider whether cable TV serviceman who was “[i]n his spare time . . . helping to build a four-plex” was employer under the Act
• homeowner building four-plex with plan to occupy one unit and rent other three
• discussing special employment in workers’ compensation law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).