Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rosenquist v. O'Neil & Preston, 245 N.W. 621.

35 citing documents.

Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Co. of Minnesota 765 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Co. of Minnesota 765 N.W.2d 403 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375, 380 , 245 N.W.
DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc. 256 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1977
DeMars v. Robinson King Floors, Inc. 256 N.W.2d 501 Minn. 1977
Employee argues that the word “award” as used in this section gives the court of appeals the right to vacate an order of dismissal, citing as authority our decisions in Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375 , 245 N.W.
McCaleb v. Jackson 239 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1976
McCaleb v. Jackson 239 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1976
1 N. W. (2d) 861 ; Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375 , .
Sandal v. TALLMAN OIL COMPANY 214 N.W.2d 691 Minn. 1974
Sandal v. TALLMAN OIL COMPANY 214 N.W.2d 691 Minn. 1974
In Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375, 377 , we said: “Within limits, the jurisdiction of the industrial commission over a compensation case is continuing.
Radzak v. Mercy Hospital 190 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 1971
Radzak v. Mercy Hospital 190 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 1971
We therefore hold that the word “award” is synonymous with the word “decision,” reaffirming the position previously taken by this court in Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375, 376 , , a case arising under an earlier version of Minn. St.
Schultz v. Ruiz 161 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1968
Schultz v. Ruiz 161 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1968
(2d) 861 ; Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375 , 245 N.W.
Anchor Casualty Co. v. BONGARDS CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSN. 91 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1958
Anchor Casualty Co. v. BONGARDS CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSN. 91 N.W.2d 122 Minn. 1958
“Rosenquist vs O’Neill & Peterson, 187 Minn. 375 , at Page 376.
Beck v. Groe 70 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1955
Beck v. Groe 70 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1955
Mergens v. Babcock, 175 Minn. 583 , ; Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375 , ; State ex rel.
Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 29 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 1947
Terres v. International Fuel Co. 293 N.W. 301 Minn. 1940
Terres v. International Fuel Co. 293 N.W. 301 Minn. 1940
Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375 , .
Herzog v. City of New Ulm 272 N.W. 174 Minn. 1937
Herzog v. City of New Ulm 272 N.W. 174 Minn. 1937
Roos v. City of Mankato, 199 Minn. 284 , ; Hawkinson v. Mirau, 196 Minn. 120 , , ; Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375 , ; Warner v. Zaiser, 184 Minn. 598 , .
Roos v. City of Mankato 271 N.W. 582 Minn. 1937
Roos v. City of Mankato 271 N.W. 582 Minn. 1937
“Within limits, the jurisdiction of the industrial commission over a compensation case is continuing.” Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375, 377 , 623 .
Maffett v. Citizens Bank 270 N.W. 596 Minn. 1936
Maffett v. Citizens Bank 270 N.W. 596 Minn. 1936
Such was the holding in Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375 , , after a full consideration of § 4295.
Hawkinson v. Mirau 264 N.W. 438 Minn. 1936
Hawkinson v. Mirau 264 N.W. 438 Minn. 1936
Relators rely on Rosenquist v. O'Neil Preston, 187 Minn. 375 , 245 N.W.
Nadeau v. Cameron Joyce Co. 260 N.W. 213 Minn. 1935
Nadeau v. Cameron Joyce Co. 260 N.W. 213 Minn. 1935
The final receipt on the form furnished by the commission starts out AA’ith the statement: “Do not sign this receipt *290 unless you intend to end payments of compensation and close the case.” The cases of Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375 , ; Johnson v. Jefferson, 191 Minn. 631 , ; and Falconer v. Central Lbr.
Falconer v. Central Lumber Co. 259 N.W. 62 Minn. 1935
Falconer v. Central Lumber Co. 259 N.W. 62 Minn. 1935
The cases of Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375 , , and Johnson v. Jefferson, 191 Minn. 631 , , point out the relationship of the two sections.
Johnson v. Jefferson 255 N.W. 87 Minn. 1934
Johnson v. Jefferson 255 N.W. 87 Minn. 1934
It will be seen that the history of this case closely parallels that of Rosenquist v. O’Neil, 187 Minn. 375 , , where this court denied the authority of the commission to grant a hearing under the law as it then stood.
Mark v. Keller 246 N.W. 472 Minn. 1933
Mark v. Keller 246 N.W. 472 Minn. 1933
But recently in Rosenquist v. O’Neil & Preston, 187 Minn. 375 , , we had occasion to apply the special and restrictive provisions of G. S. 1923, § 4295, as amended, 1 Mason, 1927 , id.