DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Eichholz v. Shaft, 208 N.W. 18.

17 citing documents.

  • Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 705 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2005
    (citing Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339, 342 , ).
  • In Re Termination of Gay 555 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    See Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339, 345 , (declining to discharge writ for lack of service where informal written notice was given adverse party within appeal period); Boetcher v. Nelson, 137 Minn. 265, 267 , 161 N.W.
  • State v. Bachmann 521 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339, 343-44 , -20 (1926).
  • Arens v. Hanecy 269 N.W.2d 924 Minn. 1978
    Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339, 342
  • Amundsen v. Poppe 34 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1948
    In Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339, 343 , , this court said: “The upkeep and care of a home for one’s self and family are not in the category of a trade, business, profession or occupation, as generally understood.
  • Fisher v. Manzke 294 N.W. 477 Minn. 1940
    They cite and rely on Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339 , ; Sink v. Pharaoh, 170 Minn. 137 , , 50 A. L. R. 1173; Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , ; Jackson v. Cathcart & Maxfield, Inc. 201 Minn. 526 , ; and Chisholm v. Davis, 207 Minn. 614 , .
  • Haimila v. the Opsahl Co. 293 N.W. 599 Minn. 1940
    1927, § 9769 (G. S. 1913, § 8313), was that the time within which the writ of certiorari may be issued does not begin to run until written notice of the order or other proceeding to be reviewed has been served upon the party adversely affected, or his attorney, *606 and that “actual notice does not take the place of such written notice.” Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339 , , was a workman’s compensation case in which it was considered that the conduct of the respondents, after informal service of
  • State v. Cooper 285 N.W. 903 Minn. 1939
    As pointed out in Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339 , , the object of the compensation act was to place upon industry, operated for profit, the burden of loss from injuries to employes engaged therein; that as such it was considered a part of the expense of operating the industry but that the act was not intended *Page 336 to place such burden and expense upon owners of
  • Rosenfield v. Matthews 275 N.W. 698 Minn. 1937
    It was to saddle the industries with the loss that resulted to the employes therein from accidental injuries received in the work.” Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339, 342 , .
  • Anderson v. Ueland 267 N.W. 517 Minn. 1936
  • Anderson v. Ueland 267 N.W. 517 Minn. 1936
    The case of Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339 , , 20 , has settled the problem in this state.
  • Fingerson v. Alpha Tau Chapter of Zeta Tau Alpha Sorority 267 N.W. 212 Minn. 1936
    But see Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339 , , and Keefover v. Vasey, 112 Neb.
  • Hagelstad v. Usiak 252 N.W. 430 Minn. 1934
    Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339 , .
  • Houser v. Osman Temple Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of Mystic Shrine 248 N.W. 827 Minn. 1933
    Foss v. Nelson, 145 Minn. 123 , ; Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339 , ; Sink v. Pharaoh, 170 Minn. 137 , , 50 A. L. R. 1173; Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , ; Ostlie v. H. F. Dirks & Son, 189 Minn. 34 , .
  • Billmayer v. Sanford 225 N.W. 426 Minn. 1929
    473 , 102 A. 127 , L. R. A. 1918F, 213; Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339 , .
  • Perkovich v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 214 N.W. 795 Minn. 1927
    Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339 , .
  • Eichholz v. Shaft 208 N.W. 18 Minn. 1926