DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co., 213 N.W. 546.

28 citing documents.

  • Dudovitz v. Shoppers City, Inc. 164 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1969
  • Snyder v. General Paper Corporation 152 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1967
  • Snyder v. General Paper Corporation 152 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1967
    We said in Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75, 79 , , 548: “At the outset it is proper to remind ourselves that the workmen’s compensation act is highly remedial and should not be construed so as to exclude an employe from the benefits thereof unless it clearly appears that he does not come within the protection of the act.” In the early workmen’s c
  • Jones v. Schiek's Cafe 152 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1967
  • Jones v. Schiek's Cafe 152 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1967
    4 Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75, 79 , , quoted in Kiley v. Sward-Kemp Drug Co. 214 Minn. 548, 554 , 9 N. W. (2d) 237, 240 .
  • Jonas v. Lillyblad 137 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1965
  • Jonas v. Lillyblad 137 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1965
    Kiley v. Sward-Kemp Drug Co. 214 Minn. 548 , 9 N. W. (2d) 237 ; Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75 , .
  • Roman v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 129 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 1964
  • Roman v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 129 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 1964
    We have in mind the often-repeated rule, expressed in Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75 , , that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is highly remedial and should not be construed so as to exclude an employee from the benefits thereof unless it clearly appears that he does not come within the protection *377 of the act.
  • Knopp v. Gutterman 102 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1960
  • Knopp v. Gutterman 102 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1960
    limited to the following periods, respectively: “(1) Actions or proceedings by an injured employee to determine or recover compensation, two years after the employer has made written report of the injury to the commission, but not to exceed six years from the date of the accident.” 2 Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75 , ; Thoresen v. Schmahl, 222 Minn. 304 , 24 N. W. (2d) 273 .
  • Johnston v. State 62 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1954
  • Thorwald v. Schmahl 24 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1946
  • Thorwald v. Schmahl 24 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1946
    Co. 215 Minn. 25, 32 , 9 N. W. (2d) 320 , 324: “Our conclusion is strengthened by the oft-repeated rule expressed in Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75 , , that the workmen’s compensation act is highly remedial and should not be construed so as to exclude an employe from the benefits thereof unless it clearly appears that he does not come within the protection of the act.” (Italics supplied.)
  • Nelson v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co. 9 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1943
  • Nelson v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co. 9 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1943
    Our conclusion is strengthened by the oft-repeated rule expressed in Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75 , , that the workmen’s compensation act is highly remedial and should not be construed so as to exclude an employe from the benefits thereof unless it clearly appears that he does not come within the protection of the act.
  • Barlau v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 9 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1943
  • Kiley v. Sward-Kemp Drug Co. 9 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1943
  • Barlau v. Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. 9 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1943
    In Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75, 77 , , the record presented the same situation, but the point was not raised.
  • Kiley v. Sward-Kemp Drug Co. 9 N.W.2d 237 Minn. 1943
    We should bear in mind the oft repeated rule (Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75 , 79 , 213 N.W.
  • Kaselnak v. Fruit Dispatch 285 N.W. 482 Minn. 1939
  • Distinguished Kaselnak v. Fruit Dispatch 285 N.W. 482 Minn. 1939
    Obviously, we think, the facts in Howlett v. Midwest Distributors, Inc. 202 Minn. 247 , ; Campbell v. Connolly Const. Co. 179 Minn. 416 , ; Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75 , , and Korhonen v. Missabe Ice Co. 153 Minn. 150 , , cited and relied upon by the employe, are so clearly distinguishable from those here presented as not to bring theminto conflict with the cases cited and relied upon by the ■commission.
  • 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
    London & L. I. Co. v. District Court, 141 Minn. 348 , ; Hansen v. N. W. Fuel Co. 144 Minn. 105 , ; Kaletha v. Hall Mercantile Co. 157 Minn. 290 , ; Behr v. Soth, 170 Minn. 278 , ; Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75 , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , .
  • Bloomquist v. Johnson Grocery 249 N.W. 44 Minn. 1933
  • Bloomquist v. Johnson Grocery 249 N.W. 44 Minn. 1933
    Nelson v. District Court, 138 Minn. 260 , , L. R. A. 1918F, 921; Dunnigan v. Clinton Falls Nursery Co. 155 Minn. 286 , ; Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75 , .
  • Ramczik v. Winona MacHine & Foundry Co. 218 N.W. 545 Minn. 1928
  • Ramczik v. Winona MacHine & Foundry Co. 218 N.W. 545 Minn. 1928
    & M. Co. v. District Court, 129 Minn. 176 , ; Hansen v. Northwestern Fuel Co. 144 Minn. 105 , ; Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 158 Minn. 495 , ; Olson v. Robinson, Straus & Co. 168 Minn. 114 , ; Orcutt v. Trustees of Wesley M. E. Church, 170 Minn. 97 , ; Moore v. J. A. McNulty Co. 171 Minn. 75 , ; Nygaard v. Throndson Brothers, 173 Minn. 441 , .