Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 176.03 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1953 c 755 s 83]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 9
cases, 1942–1961 · leading case: Monson v. Arcand, 58 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 1953).
Monson v. Arcand, 58 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 1953). “1, which provides in part: “Where an injury or death for which compensation is payable under circumstances also creating a legal liability for damages on the part of any party other than the employer, such party being at the time of such injury or death insured or self-insured…”
Volding v. Harnish, 51 N.W.2d 658 (Minn. 1952). “1, provides: “Where an injury or death for which compensation is payable under circumstances also creating a legal liability for damages on the part of any party other than the employer, such party being at the time of such injury or death insured or self-insured in accordance…”
Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Ozmun, 14 N.W.2d 351 (Minn. 1944). “04 (§ 4272-3) to claim compensation under the act or to maintain an action for damages. We shall assume that the statute gives the employe one of the two rights mentioned in such cases, but not both, and in effect requires a true election of remedies.”
Urbanski v. Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., 57 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1953). “1, which provides in part: “Where an injury or death for which compensation is payable under circumstances also creating a legal liability for damages on the part of any party other than the employer, such party being at the time of such injury or death insured or self-insured…”
Nyquist v. Batcher, 51 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 1952). “02, 2 instituted proceedings under the workmen’s compensation act against the employer, who was insured pursuant to § 176.03. A compensation award of $30 weekly, but not to exceed a total of $10,000, was granted to the dependents during their dependency, plus $257.”
Toenberg v. Harvey, 49 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. 1951). “The industrial commission based its decision, in part at least, on the expressed ground that, by reason of Harvey’s failure to obtain a separate-risk order from the industrial commission under § 176.03, liability under the Employers Mutual policy also extended *68 to any of…”
Enghusen v. H. Christiansen & Sons, Inc., 107 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. 1961). “2, pertinent to this controversy reads: “* * * or where said party or parties other than the employer are not insured or self-insured at the time of such injury or death as provided by § 176.03, legal proceedings may be taken by the employee or dependents against such other…”
Gentle v. N. States Power Co., 6 N.W.2d 361 (Minn. 1942). “Where an injury or death for which compensation is payable under circumstances also creating a legal liability for damages on the part of any party other than the employer, such party being at the time of such injury or death insured or self-insured in accordance with section…”
Monson v. Arcand, 70 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. 1955). “Since lie was not an employer, we fail to see how he could be insured in accordance with § 176.03 regardless of how the policy in question is construed.”
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.