Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 176.02 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1953 c 755 s 83]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 19
cases, 1942–1996 · leading case: Meath v. Harmful Substance Comp. Bd., 550 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 1996).
Meath v. Harmful Substance Comp. Bd., 550 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 1996). “Minn.Stat. § 176.02 (1941). Although the legislature amended the Act almost every legislative session, the 1937 amendment making the Act compulsory was the last significant change prior to December 15, 1946 when Harriet Breimhorst sustained both compensable and noncompensable…”
Cavilla v. N. States Power Co., 6 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1942). “1941, § 176.02 (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 4272-1), and that, without otherwise affecting the meaning or interpretation thereof, the expression “arising out of and in the course of employment” is declared “not to cover workmen except while engaged in, on, or about the premises where…”
Fox v. Swartz, 36 N.W.2d 708 (Minn. 1949). “§ 176.02. The same amendments require every employer under the act to pay compensation in every case of personal injury of his employe “caused by accident arising out of and in the course of the *236 employee’s employment * * § 176.”
Petro v. Martin Baking Co., 58 N.W.2d 731 (Minn. 1953). “No question of intoxication has been raised, but the employer and its insurer contend that, where a man who knows he is suffering from a heart condition and who must know that an assault will be resisted nevertheless initiates such assault, the injuries to him resulting from the…”
Hartman v. Cold Spring Granite Co., 77 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. 1956). “1949, § 176.02. “* * * All employers and employees, except those excluded by section 176.”
Lunderberg v. Bierman, 63 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 1954). “04 and reads as follows: *357 “The liability of an employer prescribed by sections 176.02 and 176.03 shall be exclusive and in the place of any other liability to such employee, his personal representative, surviving spouse, parents, child or children, dependents or next of kin,…”
Gillette v. Harold, Inc., 101 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. 1960). “We have never before been called upon to interpret the significance of this change.”
Nelson v. City of St. Paul, 81 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 1957). “1949, § 176.02. 1 Tbe question presents two phases or separate issues.”
Golob v. Buckingham Hotel, 69 N.W.2d 636 (Minn. 1955). “As is quite common in this type of case, they differ as to whether the exertion shown to have occurred here had a causal relationship to the thrombosis, which it is admitted was the immediate cause of death.”
Yeager v. Chapman, 45 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. 1951). “The evidence as to coverage or noncoverage under the workmen’s compensation act is to be examined in the light of the two companion phrases of § 176.02, namely, “arising out of and in the course of the * * * employment.”
Bourdeaux v. Gilbert Motor Co., 20 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1945). “1941, § 176.02 (Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 4272-1) ; Brown v.”
Sandy v. Walter Butler Shipbuilders, Inc., 21 N.W.2d 612 (Minn. 1946). “§ 4272-3), captioned “Liability of Employer Exclusive,” it is provided: “The liability of an employer prescribed by sections 176.02 and 176.03 shall be exclusive and in the place of any other liability to such employee, * * * or any other person entitled to recover damages at…”
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.