Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co., 158 N.W. 913.

31 citing documents.

Locke v. County of Steele 27 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1947
Locke v. County of Steele 27 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1947
Mahowald v. ThompsonStarrett Co. 134 Minn. 113, 117 , , ; Hansen v. Northwestern Fuel Co. 144 Minn. 105 , ; Bookman v. Lyle C. & R. E. Co. 153 Minn. 479 , ; Annotation, 51 A. L. R. 514; Horovitz, Workmen’s Compensation, pp. 95-105.
Kennedy v. Thompson Lumber Co. 26 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1947
Kennedy v. Thompson Lumber Co. 26 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1947
Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 134 Minn. 113 , , , and cases cited.” And in the Johnston case, this court stated ( 183 Minn. 313 , ): * * Injuries resulting from slipping on streets while in the course of the employment are taken by the courts generally as arising out of the employment the same as a street accident throu
Corcoran v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Joint Council No. 32 297 N.W. 4 Minn. 1941
Corcoran v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Joint Council No. 32 297 N.W. 4 Minn. 1941
Anseth v. District Court, 134 Minn. 16 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 957; Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 134 Minn. 113 , , ; Kaletha v. Hall Mercantile Co. 157 Minn. 290 , ; State ex rel.
McKenzie v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. 285 N.W. 529 Minn. 1939
McKenzie v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. 285 N.W. 529 Minn. 1939
(2 ed.) § 10403, note 99; Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 134 Minn. 113 , , ; Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , .
Henry v. D. A. Odell Motor Car Co. 253 N.W. 110 Minn. 1934
Henry v. D. A. Odell Motor Car Co. 253 N.W. 110 Minn. 1934
*95 See for instance the following cases: Mahowald v. ThompsonStarrett Co. 134 Minn. 113 , , ; State ex rel.
Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons 210 N.W. 75 Minn. 1926
Uotila v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 206 N.W. 937 Minn. 1926
Uotila v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 206 N.W. 937 Minn. 1926
Co. 126 Minn. 286 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 412; Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 134 Minn. 113 , , ; Hansen v. N. W. Fuel Co. 144 Minn. 105 , .
Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 198 N.W. 290 Minn. 1924
Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 198 N.W. 290 Minn. 1924
Anseth v. District Court, 134 Minn. 16 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 957; Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 134 Minn. 113 , , ; Kaletha v. Hall Mercantile Co. 157 Minn. 290 , ; State ex rel.
Dunnigan v. Clinton Falls Nursery Co. 193 N.W. 466 Minn. 1923
Dunnigan v. Clinton Falls Nursery Co. 193 N.W. 466 Minn. 1923
Peoples C. & I. Co. v. District Court, 129 Minn. 502 , 153 N. W. *290 119 , L. R. A. 1916A, 344; Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 134 Minn. 113 , , .
Kreidler v. Mahnomen Electric Light & Power Service Co. 191 N.W. 277 Minn. 1922
Kreidler v. Mahnomen Electric Light & Power Service Co. 191 N.W. 277 Minn. 1922
Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 134 Minn. 113 , , ; State v. District Court of Wilkin County, 136 Minn. 151 , ; Hansen v. Northwestern Fuel Co. 144 Minn. 105 , ; Katzenmeier v. Doeren, 150 Minn. 521 , .
Katzenmeier v. Doeren 185 N.W. 938 Minn. 1921
Katzenmeier v. Doeren 185 N.W. 938 Minn. 1921
Such was the case of Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 134 Minn. 113 , , .
Hansen v. Northwestern Fuel Co. 174 N.W. 726 Minn. 1919
Hansen v. Northwestern Fuel Co. 174 N.W. 726 Minn. 1919
Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 134 Minn. 113 , , , and eases cited; Kunze v. Detroit Shade Tree Co. 192 Mich.
Otto v. Duluth Street Railway Co. 164 N.W. 1020 Minn. 1917
State ex rel. Miller v. District Court 164 N.W. 1012 Minn. 1917
Otto v. Duluth Street Railway Co. 164 N.W. 1020 Minn. 1917
In Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 134 Minn. 113 , , , the servant was engaged in his work in the proper place at the time of the accident.
State ex rel. Miller v. District Court 164 N.W. 1012 Minn. 1917
Louis County, 129 Minn. 176 , Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 134 Minn. 113, *328 117 , , ; State v. District Court, 138 Minn. 131 , .
State ex rel. Virginia & Rainy Lake Co. v. District Court 164 N.W. 585 Minn. 1917
State ex rel. Virginia & Rainy Lake Co. v. District Court 164 N.W. 585 Minn. 1917
1916A, 344 ; Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 134 Minn. 113 , , ; 1 Bradbury’s Workmen’s Compensation, 398, et seq.; 1 Honnold, Workmen’s Compensation, § 101, et seq.; note L.R.A.
State ex rel. City of Breckenridge v. District Court 161 N.W. 388 Minn. 1917
State ex rel. City of Breckenridge v. District Court 161 N.W. 388 Minn. 1917
While the learned trial court, upon sustaining the demurrer to the complaint in the former action, might well have adopted the' course indicated as proper in Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. 133 Minn. 113 , , and retained the case for hearing under the compensation statute, we are clear that the judgment therein should not be held a bar to the compensation proceedings.