Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Price v. Great Northern Railway Co., 158 N.W. 825.

13 citing documents.

Severson v. Engbarth 135 N.W.2d 205 Minn. 1965
Klemer v. District Court, 134 Minn. 189 , , involving the right to vacate a judgment in a workmen’s compensation action for newly discovered evidence.
Holmes v. Conter 295 N.W. 649 Minn. 1941
Klemer v. District Court, 134 Minn. 189 , ; De Coster v. Jorgenson, 137 Minn. 472 , .
Rosenquist v. O'Neil & Preston 245 N.W. 621 Minn. 1932
Klemer v. District Court, 134 Minn. 189 , (arising under a former laAv and before the creation of the industrial commission; the district court was held to have poAver, on neAv evidence, to reopen a judgment of aAvard of compensation under our general statute relative to judgments and relief therefrom within a year, G. S. 1913, § 7786; G. S. 1923 [ 2 Mason, 1
Worrlein v. Maier 225 N.W. 399 Minn. 1929
Klemer v. District Court, 134 Minn. 189 , ; Ricker v. J. L. Owens Mfg.
Strizich v. Zenith Furnace Co. 223 N.W. 926 Minn. 1929
Klemer v. District Court, 134 Minn. 189 , .
Johnson v. Iverson 221 N.W. 65 Minn. 1928
Klemer v. District Court, 134 Minn. 189 , , and Ronstadt v. Minor, 152 Minn. 10 , 187 N.W.
Zeglin v. Yost 203 N.W. 963 Minn. 1925
Klemer v. District Court, 134 Minn. 189 , .
Ronstadt v. Minor 187 N.W. 703 Minn. 1922
Klemer v. District Court of Rice County, 134 Minn. 189 , .
Integrity Mutual Casualty Co. v. Nelson 183 N.W. 837 Minn. 1921
The question was not presented in State v. District Court of Rice County, 134 Minn. 189 , , a lump sum settlement not being there involved.
Connelly v. Carnegie Dock & Fuel Co. 181 N.W. 857 Minn. 1921
ting errors in fixing the amount of compensation, as the remedy is not available until after six months from the award, and then only where there has been an 'increase or decrease of incapacity.’ This clearly means an increase or decrease of capacity since the award was made, a change in circumstances that justifies a modification.” Again in State v. District Court of Rice County, 134 Minn. 189 , , where a new trial was sought on the ground of newly discovered evidence, affecting the extent of t
Troska v. Brecht 167 N.W. 1042 Minn. 1918
T. Co. v. Grimes, 128 Minn. 321 , ; State v. District Court of Rice County, 134 Minn. 189 , ; Hoff v. Hoff, 133 Minn. 86 , .
State ex rel. Tinglestad v. Nye 161 N.W. 224 Minn. 1917
The case of State v. District Court of Rice County, 134 Minn. 189 , , cited by respondent, involved an application for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence and not a right under the statute to apply for a readjustment.
Smith v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 159 N.W. 623 Minn. 1916
See State v. District Court of Rice *296 County, supra, page 189, ; Sheffield v. Mullin, 28 Minn. 251 , .