Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 198 N.W. 290.

75 citing documents.

Hohlt v. University of Minnesota 897 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2017
Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy 840 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2013
Foley v. Honeywell, Inc. 488 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1992
Foley v. Honeywell, Inc. 488 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1992
Novack v. Montgomery Ward, 158 Minn. 495, 498 , 198 N.W.
Gibberd Ex Rel. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp. 424 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1988
Gibberd Ex Rel. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp. 424 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1988
See, e.g., Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 158 Minn. 495 , 198 N.W.
MILBANK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Biss 161 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1968
MILBANK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Biss 161 N.W.2d 622 Minn. 1968
945 ; Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , 198 N.W.
Hill v. TERRAZZO MACHINE & SUPPLY COMPANY 157 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1968
Hill v. TERRAZZO MACHINE & SUPPLY COMPANY 157 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 1968
Our approach to the issue of whether the injury arose as a part of the service or during the hours of service has been guided by Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , , and Simonson v. Knight, 174 Minn. 491 , , two of the early and leading decisions which express the spirit and policy of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Blattner v. Loyal Order of Moose 117 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 1962
Blattner v. Loyal Order of Moose 117 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 1962
Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , .
Lange v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission 99 N.W.2d 915 Minn. 1959
Lange v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission 99 N.W.2d 915 Minn. 1959
1 Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495, 498 , ; 21 Dunnell, Dig.
Corcoran v. Fitzgerald Bros. 58 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1953
Corcoran v. Fitzgerald Bros. 58 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1953
Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495, 499 , , where we said: “Where the employe enters the premises of the employer on her way to her work and pursues the proper course to the place of her labor, while there in the performance of her duties as an employe, and until she has left the premises by the ordinary means of exit, she is engaged
Weidenbach v. Miller 55 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1952
Weidenbach v. Miller 55 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1952
In Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495, 498 , , we said: “We have heretofore declined to attempt to give a comprehensive definition of this language which should include all cases embraced therein and with precision exclude those outside of its terms.
Yeager v. Chapman 45 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1951
Yeager v. Chapman 45 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1951
Duluth B. & M. Co. v. District Court, 129 Minn. 176 , ; Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , .
Hurley v. Chaffee 43 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1950
Hurley v. Chaffee 43 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1950
Co. 157 Minn. 290 , ; Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , ; O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , ; McKenzie v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. 205 Minn. 231 , .
Fox v. Swartz 36 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1949
Fox v. Swartz 36 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1949
8 Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , ; Donnelly v. Minneapolis Mfg.
McBride v. Preston Creamery Assn. 36 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1949
McBride v. Preston Creamery Assn. 36 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1949
See, Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , ; Cavilla v. Northern States Power Co. 213 Minn. 331 , 6 N. W. (2d) 812 ; Barlau v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Imp.
Breimhorst v. Beckman 35 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1949
Breimhorst v. Beckman 35 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1949
* * * “ * * An injury arises out of the employment if it arises out of the nature, conditions, obligations or incidents of the employment; in other words, out of the employment looked at in any of its aspects.’ ” Confusion frequently arises from the varying implications of the phrase “peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood.” Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495, 499 , .
Fjeld v. Marshall County Co-Operative Oil Assn. 35 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1948
Fjeld v. Marshall County Co-Operative Oil Assn. 35 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1948
278 at the time of the injury, and during the hours of service as such workmen;” and § 176.02 provides that “every such employer shall be liable for * * * and pay compensation in every case of personal injury of his employee, caused by accident arising out of and in the course of the employee’s employment without regard to the question of negligence, except * * Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , , is the leading Minnesota case dealing with definitions of the expressions in the w
Olson v. Trinity Lodge No. 282, A. F. A. M. 32 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1948
Olson v. Trinity Lodge No. 282, A. F. A. M. 32 N.W.2d 255 Minn. 1948
Duluth B. & M. Co. v. District Court, 129 Minn. 176 , ; Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , .
Ridler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 28 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1947
Distinguished Ridler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 28 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1947
He relies for support in this contention upon O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , ; McKenzie v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. 205 Minn. 231 , ; Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , ; and Kaletha v. Hall Merc.
Ohlsen v. J. G. Dill Co. 23 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 1946
Ohlsen v. J. G. Dill Co. 23 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 1946
As stated in Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495, 498 , , 292: “The injury is received fin the course of’ the employment when it comes while the employe is doing his work.
Callaghan v. Brown 16 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1944
Callaghan v. Brown 16 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1944
In Corcoran v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Joint Council, 209 Minn. 289, 292 , , this court adhered to the rule previously announced in Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495, 498 , , and prior cases, that an injury “may be received fin the course of the employment’ and still have no causal connection with it,” and in order to arise out of the employment it must reasonably appear, “from all the facts and circumstances, that there is a causal connection between the condit
Brusven v. Ballord 14 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1944
Brusven v. Ballord 14 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1944
In Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495, 498 , , where the court discussed the meaning of the terms “in the course of employment” and “arising out of employment,” it said: “The injury is received ‘in the course of’ the employment when it comes while the employe is doing his work.
Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 297 N.W. 19 Minn. 1941
Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 297 N.W. 19 Minn. 1941
So it is enough that injury follows “as a natural incident of the work * * * as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment.” Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495, 498 , .
Stenberg v. Raymond Co-Operative Creamery 296 N.W. 498 Minn. 1941
Stenberg v. Raymond Co-Operative Creamery 296 N.W. 498 Minn. 1941
suddenly and resulted in a fracture at the base of the skull when he struck an iron stand or the concrete floor, both of which were instrumentalities of the employment.” Viewing the accident “after the event,” we think that it appears “to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence.” Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495, 499 , .
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
It has been said of it, that it admits of an inexhaustible variety of application according to the nature of the employment and the character of the facts proved.” In Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , , former Chief Justice Wilson pointed out the distinction between the phrases “in the course of employment” and “arising out of the employment.” That case furnishes some guidance in solving the question before us. We quote from the opinion ( 158 Minn. 498 ): “The injury is receive
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 , .
Kaselnak v. Fruit Dispatch 285 N.W. 482 Minn. 1939
Kaselnak v. Fruit Dispatch 285 N.W. 482 Minn. 1939
Miller v. District Court, 188 Minn. 326 , 328, , L. R. A. 1918F, 881; Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , ; Brokmeier v. Lamb, 170 Minn. 143 , ; 71 C. J. p. 669 [§ 410]4, and cases cited under note 54 [c].