Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 176.16 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1953 c 755 s 83]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 8
cases, 1945–1962 · leading case: Sobczyk v. City of Duluth, 73 N.W.2d 795 (Minn. 1955).
Sobczyk v. City of Duluth, 73 N.W.2d 795 (Minn. 1955). “1949, § 176.16. [2] *572 That statute read in part: "Unless the employer shall have actual knowledge of the occurrence of the injury, or unless the injured workman, or a dependent, or some one in behalf of either, shall give notice thereof to the employer in writing within 14…”
Fink v. Cold Spring Granite Co., 115 N.W.2d 22 (Minn. 1962). “66, subdivision 1, notice thereof in accordance with section 176.16 [now § 176.141] shall have been given to the employer, and unless the claim is filed with the commission with[in] the period specified in section 176.”
Ogren v. City of Duluth, 18 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 1945). “Such further statement of the facts as may be necessary will be made separately in connection with the questions raised here.”
Rinne v. W. C. Griffis Co., 47 N.W.2d 872 (Minn. 1951). “, 712 , to be as follows: “* * * where an employe in the course of his employment sustains an apparently trivial injury which does not result in present disability and which no person of ordinary prudence, similarly situated, would reasonably anticipate as likely to cause future…”
Kaljuste v. Hennepin Cnty. Sanatorium Comm'n, 61 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1953). “18; that there is no time limit provided within which an employee must give notice to his employer of having contracted tuberculosis, while there is such a time limit under the workmen’s compensation act, §§ 176.16 and 176.661; that the benefits provided are much greater than…”
Balow v. Kellogg Coop. Creamery Ass'n, 78 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. 1956). “1949, § 176.16, in effect at that time, was substantially the same as § 176.”
Sokness v. City of Virginia, 42 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. 1950). “§ 176.16. Here, no written notice was given.”
Bruggeman v. Ford Motor Co., 30 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 1948). “this court applied the rule that where an employe in the course of his employment sustains an apparently trivial injury which does not result in present disability and which no person of ordinary prudence, similarly situated, would reasonably anticipate as likely to cause future…”
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.