Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 176.06 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1953 c 755 s 83]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 30
cases, 1942–2004 · leading case: Orth v. Shiely Petter Crushed Stone Co., 91 N.W.2d 463 (Minn. 1958).
Orth v. Shiely Petter Crushed Stone Co., 91 N.W.2d 463 (Minn. 1958). “1949, § 176.06, subd. 2, [1] which authorizes subrogation of an employer in third-party negligence actions instituted by an employee, but which does not extend subrogation rights to the custodian of the special compensation fund, and that therefore he should be required to pay…”
Nyquist v. Batcher, 51 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 1952). “The primary issue with which we are now concerned is: May contributory negligence of the employer be asserted as a defense by a third-party defendant in an action for damages brought against him by the dependents of an employe for whose death compensation has been paid, or is…”
Dockendorf v. Lakie, 61 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 1953). “We have these issues: (1) Is strict compliance with a prayer for relief in the complaint a jurisdictional prerequisite for the entry of a valid default judgment? (2) Under § 176.06, subd. 2, is an employer’s subrogration right limited to the recovery of periodic disability…”
Dockendorf v. Lakie, 86 N.W.2d 728 (Minn. 1957). “1949, § 176.06, subd. 2, for reimbursement of benefits and medical expenses paid an injured employee, who had accepted such benefits prior to commencement of this action against a third-party tortfeasor.”
Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., 634 N.W.2d 401 (Minn. 2001). “2d 566, 570 (1952) (discussing Minn.Stat. § 176.06, subd. 2 (1952), which was repealed and replaced by Minn.”
Crawford v. Woodrich Constr. Co. Inc., 57 N.W.2d 648 (Minn. 1953). “First we have the question whether plaintiff’s action against the Woodrich Construction Company is barred by § 176.06, subd. 1, of the workmen’s compensation act.”
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 93 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 1958). “" The court then went on to say: "* * * Henceforth, therefore, the last paragraph of § 176.06, subd. 1, should be interpreted and actually applied as if it in fact read as follows: "`The provisions of subdivision 1 of this section shall apply only where the employer liable for…”
Urbanski v. Merchants Motor Freight, Inc., 57 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1953). “The trial court then made findings on the issue whether plaintiff’s negligence action was barred by § 176.06, subd. 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…”
Monson v. Arcand, 58 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 1953). “The court also reserved for its own determination the further question whether, if defendant were a third party liable for damages, those damages were limited under § 176.06, subd. 1, to the amount and the manner of payment provided by the workmen’s compensation act.”
Volding v. Harnish, 51 N.W.2d 658 (Minn. 1952). “Neither counsel for plaintiff nor counsel for defendant requested that the court charge the jury on the issue of common enterprise or the accomplishment of the same or related purposes, as covered by § 176.06, subd. 1, and no instruction was given thereon.”
Hagen v. Venem, 366 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 1985). “While section 176.06, subd. 6, creates a limited subrogation right in the employer against the third party tortfeasor, the employer would have no subrogation rights, as employees note, against the return on the employee’s own investment of a lump sum recovery which, in effect,…”
Enghusen v. H. Christiansen & Sons, Inc., 107 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. 1961). “1949, §§ 176.06, subd. 2, and 176.12, subd. 11.”
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.