Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 176.255 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1953 c 755 s 83]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 5 cases, 1951–2014 · leading case: Maxwell Commc'ns v. Webb Publ'g Co., 518 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Maxwell Commc'ns v. Webb Publ'g Co., 518 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. 1994). · cites it 4× “[4] Only American States Insurance Company and its insured, Donlar Construction Company, agreed to the payment of benefits pursuant to a section 176.”

Nichols v. State, Off. of the Sec'y, 842 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “10 (1961), the supreme court held that the language of section 176.255 does not reflect the state’s consent to be sued because it is not so “ ‘plain, clear, and unmistakable as to leave no doubt as to the intention of the legislature.”

Toenberg v. Harvey, 49 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. 1951). · cites it 2× “” Section 176.255 provides: “Where benefits are payable under the provisions of this chapter, and a dispute arises between two or more employers or insurers as to which of the employers or insurers is liable for payment thereof, the commission may direct the payment of the…”

Zanmiller v. Aetna Technical Servs., Inc., 379 N.W.2d 612 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “Minn.Stat. § 176.255, subd. 1 (1984) (emphasis supplied).”

Lemmer v. Batzli Elec. Co., 125 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 1963). “1949, § 176.255, (now superseded by Minn. St. 176.”

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.