Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 176.01 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1953 c 755 s 83]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54
cases, 1942–1989 · leading case: Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. 1989).
Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. 1989). “Korovilas held that the president and major stockholder of a corporation was in business for himself and thus was not an employee of that corporation for purposes of the workers’ compensation act, Minn.Stat. § 176.01 et seq. (1941). Korovilas was decided on its facts and does…”
Knopp v. Gutterman, 102 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1960). “755, entitled “An act relating to workmen’s compensation, and codifying and revising the laws relating thereto; and repealing Minnesota Statutes 1949, Sections 176.01 to 176.12, 176.14 to 176.”
Corcoran v. PG Corcoran Co. Inc., 71 N.W.2d 787 (Minn. 1955). “3, 2 which reads: “Neither the employee nor his dependents are entitled to compensation for disability or death resulting from occupational disease, unless such disease is due to the nature of his employment as defined in section 176.01, subdivision 15, and was contracted…”
Dockendorf v. Lakie, 61 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 1953). “2, clearly indicates that a different meaning is intended (§ 176.01, subd. 1), we are bound by the definition set forth in § 176.”
St. Claire v. Minnesota Harbor Serv., Inc., 211 F. Supp. 521 (D. Minnesota 1962). “§ 176.01 et seq. The Courts of this State have applied the test of “control” to determine whether one person was the “employee” of another.”
Nelson v. City of St. Paul, 81 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 1957). “1949, § 176.01, subd. 11, and as used in M. S. A.”
Le Bar v. Ewald Bros. Dairy, 13 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1944). “1941, § 176.01, subd. 11 (Mason,St. 1927, § 4326[j]): “Without otherwise affecting either the meaning or interpretation of the abridged clause ‘personal injuries arising out of and in the course of employment,’ it is hereby declared: “Not to cover workmen except while engaged…”
Cosgriff v. Duluth Firemen's Relief Assn., 46 N.W.2d 250 (Minn. 1951). “As defined in § 176.01, subd. 8(2), of the compensation act, the term “employe” includes “Every person in service of another under any contract of hire, expressed or implied, oral or written, * * By L.”
Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Ozmun, 14 N.W.2d 351 (Minn. 1944). “ry, with the consequence that liability is excluded under the first section of the exclusion clause; (2) Viola was injured under such circumstances that Lloyd as her employer “might” be held liable under the workmen’s compensation act; and (3) Viola in her personal injury action…”
Petro v. Martin Baking Co., 58 N.W.2d 731 (Minn. 1953). “" This exclusion is found in § 176.01, subd. 11, which provides that the phrase shall not include: "* * * an injury caused by the act of a third person or fellow employee intended to injure the employee because of reasons personal to him, and not directed against him as an…”
Christensen v. Hennepin Transp. Co. Inc., 10 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. 1943). “§§ 176.01 to 176.81 (§§ 4261 to 4337-5), and other legislation.”
Kennedy v. Thompson Lumber Co., 26 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. 1947). “1945, § 176.01, subd. 11, 2 provides that workmen are not covered “except while engaged in, on, or about the premises where their services are being performed, or where their services require their presence as a part of such service, at the time of the injury, and during the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.