Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 176.60 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
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[Repealed, 1953 c 755 s 83]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 12
cases, 1942–1974 · leading case: Bomersine v. Armour & Co., 30 N.W.2d 526 (Minn. 1947).
Bomersine v. Armour & Co., 30 N.W.2d 526 (Minn. 1947). “60 provides: “At any time after an award has been made and before the same has been reduced to judgment or writ of certiorari issued by the supreme court, the commission may, for cause, upon application of either party and not less than five days’ notice in writing to all…”
Guptill v. Conlon Constr. Co., 58 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. 1953). “Section 176.60 authorizes the industrial commission, for cause and upon notice, to set aside an award and grant a new hearing in proceedings before the commission at any time before the award has been reduced to judgment or a writ of certiorari to review the proceedings has…”
Lappinen v. Union Ore Co., 29 N.W.2d 8 (Minn. 1947). “old that the workmen’s compensation act contemplates that there shall be only one proceeding by an employe or his dependents to recover compensation; that the proceeding must be commenced within the time limited by the statute; that at any time before certiorari to review the…”
Walker v. Midwest Foods, 197 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. 1972). “2d 529 ): “As to what constitutes ‘cause’ sufficient to justify the vacation of an award by the commission under § 176.60 3 without abuse of discretion, we have held that the commission has not abused its discretion in vacating an award where it is demonstrated that the original…”
Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co., 45 N.W.2d 640 (Minn. 1951). “4 It provides that a written and signed stipulation of the parties for the settlement of disability compensation, if it does not purport to establish such finality of settlement as to preclude a reopening of any award thereon under § 176.60, and if it is made subject to the…”
Wallace v. Leitzen, 68 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. 1955). “7 We therefore conclude that the industrial commission did not abuse its discretion in denying relator’s petition to vacate the award and for a rehearing.”
Sandal v. Tallman Oil Co., 214 N.W.2d 691 (Minn. 1974). “2d 529 ) : “ ‘As to what constitutes “cause” sufficient to justify the vacation of an award by the commission under § 176.60 [a predeces *267 sor statute to § 176.”
Jones v. Flour City Ornamental Iron Works, 134 N.W.2d 586 (Minn. 1965). “we said: *49 “As to what constitutes ‘cause’ sufficient to justify the vacation of an award by the commission under § 176.60 [predecessor of § 176.461] without abuse of discretion, we have held that the commission has not abused its discretion in vacating an award where it is…”
Wold v. Decca Distrib. Co., 130 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 1964). “All awards pursuant to such settlement shall be subject to reopening in accordance with section 176.60, notwithstanding any statement or agreement to the.”
Gustafson v. Ziesmer & Vorlander, Inc., 6 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. 1942). “Gustafson to substitute her name for that of her deceased husband but also ordered “that said matter be referred back to said referee to hear and receive such further competent testimony as the parties in the above entitled matter may adduce, and that he use such further…”
Gartner v. Hogstad Fish Co., 43 N.W.2d 798 (Minn. 1950). “The commission’s power to set aside its award and grant a rehearing is covered by § 176.60, as amended by L. 1947, c. 100, § 1, which provides that: “At any time after an award has been made and before writ of certiorari issued by the supreme court, the commission may, for…”
Nielsen v. Lysne Constr., Inc., 131 N.W.2d 549 (Minn. 1964). “2 “As to what constitutes ‘cause’ sufficient to justify the vacation of an award by the commission under § 176.60 [now Minn. St. 176.461] without abuse of discretion, we have held that the commission has not abused its discretion in vacating an award where it is demonstrated…”
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.