Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite O'Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co., 207 N.W. 636.

65 citing documents.

Ramaker v. Marjae, Inc. 221 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1974
Pasko v. BEECHER COMPANY 221 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1974
Pasko v. BEECHER COMPANY 221 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 1974
O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251
Ramaker v. Marjae, Inc. 221 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 1974
In support of our holding, we cited O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251
Dahmen v. River Towers Corporation 218 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1974
Dahmen v. River Towers Corporation 218 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1974
O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251
Dudovitz v. Shoppers City, Inc. 164 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1969
Moorhead v. Grassle 93 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1958
Moorhead v. Grassle 93 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1958
O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , .
Koktavy v. City of New Prague 75 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1956
Koktavy v. City of New Prague 75 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1956
9 O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , ; Nygaard v. Throndson Brothers, 173 Minn. 441 , ; Hagelstad v. Usiak, 190 Minn. 513 , ; Chisholm v. Davis, 207 Minn. 614 , ; James v. Peterson, 211 Minn. 481 , 1 N. W. (2d) 844 ; 15 Minn. L. Rev. 800 .
Krause v. Trustees of Hamline University of Minnesota 68 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1955
Krause v. Trustees of Hamline University of Minnesota 68 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1955
9 See, O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , .
Chillstrom v. Trojan Seed Co. 65 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1954
Chillstrom v. Trojan Seed Co. 65 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1954
17 “That on July 14, 1936, Ole John Ruud sustained an accidental injury to his person arising out of and in the course of his said employment resulting in his death on July 16, 1936.” 18 M. S. A. 176.481; see, O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , *488 ; Olson v. Griffin Wheel Co. 218 Minn. 48 , 15 N. W. (2d) 511 , 156 A. L. R. 1338; Kennedy v. Thompson Lbr.
Weidenbach v. Miller 55 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1952
Weidenbach v. Miller 55 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1952
In O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251, 257 , , we said: “* * * an employer may enlarge or extend the scope of the employment; and an employe who, at the direction of his employer or of a superior to whose orders he is subject, performs services outside the duties of his usual employment, and performs them in consequence of the existence
Hurley v. Chaffee 43 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1950
Distinguished 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 , .
Anderson v. Northwestern Hospital 40 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1949
Anderson v. Northwestern Hospital 40 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 1949
See, O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , .
Otten v. University Hospitals 40 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1949
Otten v. University Hospitals 40 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1949
O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , ; Ramsey v. New York Cent.
Stepan v. J. C. Campbell Co. 36 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1949
Stepan v. J. C. Campbell Co. 36 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 1949
Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , 11 A. L. R. 227; O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251, 258 , ; Ridler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 224 Minn. 256 , 28 N. W. (2d) 859 .
Judd v. Sanatorium Commission of Hennepin County 35 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 1948
Judd v. Sanatorium Commission of Hennepin County 35 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 1948
In O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , , the Percy Vittum Company was a corporation engaged in the business of selling livestock.
Ridler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 28 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1947
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.
Kennedy v. Thompson Lumber Co. 26 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1947
Kennedy v. Thompson Lumber Co. 26 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1947
O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , .
Le Bar v. Ewald Bros. Dairy 13 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1944
Le Bar v. Ewald Bros. Dairy 13 N.W.2d 729 Minn. 1944
Eelators rely on O’Eourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 *20 Minn. 251, , but the facts of that case have no resemblance to those of the one at bar.
Berger v. Church of St. Patrick 3 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1942
Berger v. Church of St. Patrick 3 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 1942
In that respect, it must be distinguished from the statute construed in O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , .
James v. Peterson 1 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1942
James v. Peterson 1 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1942
155 Minn. 267 , ; O’Bourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251, 257 , .
Ryan v. Twin City Wholesale Grocer Co. 297 N.W. 705 Minn. 1941
Ryan v. Twin City Wholesale Grocer Co. 297 N.W. 705 Minn. 1941
Co. 124 Minn. 245 , ; O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , ; Campbell v. Connolly Contracting Co. 179 Minn. 416 , ; Wegman v. G. N. Ry.
Chisholm v. Davis 292 N.W. 268 Minn. 1940
Chisholm v. Davis 292 N.W. 268 Minn. 1940
An employe whose employment is not casual is within the act even though his injury occurs at a time when he is not engaged in the usual course of the employer’s trade or business, Nygaard v. Throndson Bros. 173 Minn. 441 , ; O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , ; State ex rel.
Walerius v. Foldesi 289 N.W. 55 Minn. 1939
Walerius v. Foldesi 289 N.W. 55 Minn. 1939
O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251, 255 , , indicates the importance of “keeping the notice posted.” Of course it is not to be successfully asserted that a temporary taking down of a posted notice of this sort for painting or cleaning purposes destroys or cancels the election of the employer not to be bound; but the statute, 1 Mason Minn.
Oberg v. Dubeau 279 N.W. 221 Minn. 1938
Distinguished Oberg v. Dubeau 279 N.W. 221 Minn. 1938
O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , , and Nygaard v. Throndson Bros. supra, are not distinguishable from the case at bar.
Jackson v. Cathcart & Maxfield, Inc. 276 N.W. 22 Minn. 1938
Jackson v. Cathcart & Maxfield, Inc. 276 N.W. 22 Minn. 1938
924 ; O'Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , 207 N.W.
Thompson v. George E. Thompson Co. Inc. 270 N.W. 694 Minn. 1936
Thompson v. George E. Thompson Co. Inc. 270 N.W. 694 Minn. 1936
*549 Relator alleges that this case is controlled by O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , .
Hagelstad v. Usiak 252 N.W. 430 Minn. 1934