Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 7.04 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1Sp1985 c 13 s 376]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1989–2020 · leading case: Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy, 840 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 2013).
Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy, 840 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 2013). “Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 7.04[l][a] (2012) (explaining that, with respect to injuries in which the source of harm is unknown, “there is no way in which an award can be justified as a matter of causation theory” except by application of the but-for reasoning…”
Alleco, Inc. v. IBJ Schroder Bank & Trust Co., 745 F. Supp. 1467 (D. Minnesota 1989). “The “no action” clause of the Indenture, section 7.04, 7 restricts the rights of holders of less than twenty-five percent of the aggregate principal amount of the Debentures to bring suit on their own.”
Save Lantern Bay v. Cass Cnty. Plan. Comm'n, 683 N.W.2d 862 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “” An appeal of the PC’s decision on a final plat thus examines the final plat against the standards of section 7.04 in particular and article 7 as a whole.”
Kubis v. Cmty. Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, 897 N.W.2d 254 (Minn. 2017). “4 Under the positional-risk test, an employee satisfies both the “arising out of’ and “in the course of’ requirements without regard to risk if the injury would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of the employer placed the employee in the…”
Quantum Corp. v. RODIME PLC, 851 F. Supp. 1382 (D. Minnesota 1994). “[7] The prosecution history consists of all the correspondence, filings and actions taken by the patent examiner and the applicant from the time of the initial filing of the application until the ultimate determination regarding the patent. [8] Specifically, Rodime noted that…”
Hermeling v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 851 F. Supp. 1369 (D. Minnesota 1994). “The prosecution history consists of all the correspondence, filings and actions taken by the patent examiner and the applicant from the time of the initial filing of the application until the ultimate determination regarding the patent.”
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. Cnty. of Mille Lacs, Minnesota (D. Minnesota 2020). “”); 1 Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 7.04 (2019) (“Federal question jurisdiction … extends to claims based on federal common law, including cases involving … challenges to the exercise of state authority in Indian country.”
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.