Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rautio v. International Harvester Co., 231 N.W. 214.

29 citing documents.

Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Whether the Christmas party was “reasonably incidental” to the employment may be a question of fact; appellants have produced evidence that the treatment center itself believed the Christmas party was “an extension of the workplace.” But cf. Rautio v. International Harvester Co., 180 Minn. 400, 405 , 231 N.W.
Schmidt v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 376 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Schmidt v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 376 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Rautio v. International Harvester Co., 180 Minn. 400 , 231 N.W.
Bartley v. C-H Riding Stables, Inc. 206 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1973
Bartley v. C-H Riding Stables, Inc. 206 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1973
The general rule is that where injury-producing conduct is in violation of a specific instruction or order of the employer, benefits are denied, Rautio v. International Harvester Co. 180 Minn. 400 , unless contemporaneously with the violation, the employee was performing work in furtherance of his employer’s business.
Walsh v. Chas. Olson & Sons, Inc. 172 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1969
Walsh v. Chas. Olson & Sons, Inc. 172 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1969
Rautio v. International Harvester Co. 180 Minn. 400 , ; Anderson v. Russell Miller Milling Co. 196 Minn. 358 , .
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
5 Rautio v. International Harvester Co. 180 Minn. 400 , ; Anderson v. Russell Miller Milling Co. 196 Minn. 358 , .
Torrey v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc. 93 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 1958
Torrey v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc. 93 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 1958
such an employee may not unnecessarily increase the risk of injury to himself beyond that reasonably contemplated by the employment contract and that, if he sustains an injury while performing an act not reasonably contemplated, the injury does not arise out of and in the course of his employment, citing 7 Schneider, Workmen’s Compensation (Perm, ed.) § 1646; Rautio v. International Harvester Co. 180 Minn. 400 , , and other cases where it was claimed that the employee went beyond the scope of hi
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
See, Rautio v. International Harvester Co. 180 Minn. 400, 405 , .
Brusven v. Ballord 14 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1944
Brusven v. Ballord 14 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 1944
Co. 180 Minn. 400, 405 , , where this court again defined the term “out of,” it said: “* * * The accident, in order to arise 'out of the employment, must he of such nature that the risk might have been contemplated by a reasonable person, when entering the employment, as incidental to it.
Tucker v. Newman 14 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1944
Tucker v. Newman 14 N.W.2d 767 Minn. 1944
Co. 180 Minn. 400 , ; Anderson v. Russell Miller Mill.
James v. Peterson 1 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1942
James v. Peterson 1 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1942
(Rautio v. International Harvester Co. 180 Minn. 400 , ; Anderson v. Russell Miller Milling Co. 196 Minn. 358 , .)
Thomas v. Industrial Com. of Arizona 96 P.2d 407 Ariz. 1939
Prentice v. Twin City Wholesale Grocery 278 N.W. 895 Minn. 1938
Prentice v. Twin City Wholesale Grocery 278 N.W. 895 Minn. 1938
Co. 180 Minn. 400 , , and cases cited in the paragraph numbered four in that opinion.
Sentieri v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 276 N.W. 210 Minn. 1937
Sentieri v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 276 N.W. 210 Minn. 1937
Co. 172 Minn. 185 , 214 * Rautio v. International Harvester Co. 180 Minn. 400 , ; Anderson v. Russell-Miller Milling Co. 196 Minn. 358 , .
Anderson v. Russell Miller Milling Co. 267 N.W. 501 Minn. 1936
Anderson v. Russell Miller Milling Co. 267 N.W. 501 Minn. 1936
Co. 180 Minn. 400 , 231 N.W.
Byam v. Inter-State Iron Co. 250 N.W. 812 Minn. 1933
Byam v. Inter-State Iron Co. 250 N.W. 812 Minn. 1933
Co. 180 Minn. 400 , ; but it was only to the proposition that [ 180 Minn. 406 ] “violations of orders or directions do not always defeat compensation.