Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 297 N.W. 19.

52 citing documents.

Deangelo Profit, Minn. 2023
When determining whether a third person’s attack on an employee comes within the assault exception, which separates assault cases into three groups: 7 (1) those that are noncompensable under the Act because the assailant was motivated by personal animosity toward his victim, arising from circumstances wholly unconnected with the employment; (2) those that are compensable under the Act becau
Roller-Dick v. Centracare Health Sys. 916 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2018
Roller-Dick v. Centracare Health Sys. 916 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2018
These included obvious or easily understood risks such as "unsafe conditions" in an employer-owned parking ramp, Foley v. Honeywell, Inc. , , 272 (Minn. 1992), an employee's required presence in a high crime area, Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. , 209 Minn. 596 , 297 N.W.
Hohlt v. University of Minnesota 897 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2017
Hohlt v. University of Minnesota 897 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2017
(quoting Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 209 Minn. 596 , 297 N.W.
Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy 840 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2013
Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy 840 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2013
The “arising out of’ requirement “eonnote[s] a causal connection” and the “in the course of’ requirement “refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the incident causing the injury.” Id.; see also Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 209 Minn. 596, 599 , 297 N.W.
Stengel v. East Side Beverage 690 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Stengel v. East Side Beverage 690 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See id.; Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 209 Minn. 596, 600 , 297 N.W.
Meinstma v. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Meinstma v. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
It was Meinstma’s employment at Loram that “exposed him to a different and greater hazard of injury from assault than if he had been pursuing ordinary personal affairs.” Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 209 Minn. 596, 598 , 297 N.W.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co v. Seagate Technology, Inc. 570 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co v. Seagate Technology, Inc. 570 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Foley, d at 271 ; see also Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 209 Minn. 596, 599 , 297 N.W.
McGowan v. Our Savior's Lutheran Church 527 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1995
McGowan v. Our Savior's Lutheran Church 527 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1995
Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 209 Minn. 596, 600 , 297 N.W.
Fernandez v. Ramsey County 495 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Fernandez v. Ramsey County 495 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
So it is enough that injury follows “as a natural incident of the work * * * as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment.” Foley, d at 271 (quoting Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 209 Minn. 596, 599 , 297 N.W.
Foley v. Honeywell, Inc. 488 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1992
Foley v. Honeywell, Inc. 488 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1992
Gibberd, d at 780 ; Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 209 Minn. 596, 598-99 , 297 N.W.
Bear v. Honeywell, Inc. 468 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 1991
Bear v. Honeywell, Inc. 468 N.W.2d 546 Minn. 1991
In Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 209 Minn. 596 , 297 N.W.
Gibberd Ex Rel. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp. 424 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1988
Gibberd Ex Rel. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp. 424 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1988
4 (1941); Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 209 Minn. 596 , 297 N.W.
Parker v. Tharp 409 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Parker v. Tharp 409 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Also, it must not have been “directed against him as an employee or because of his employment.” Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 209 Minn. 596, 599-600 , 297 N.W.
Gagne v. Oreck 122 N.W.2d 589 Minn. 1963
Gagne v. Oreck 122 N.W.2d 589 Minn. 1963
3 Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 209 Minn. 596 , ; Ohlsen v. J. G. Dill Co. 222 Minn. 10 , 23 N. W. (2d) 15 .
Swenson v. Zacher 118 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1962
Swenson v. Zacher 118 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1962
Hanson v, Robitshek-Schneider Co. 209 Minn. 596 , 297 N. W, 19; Horovitz, Current Trends in Workmen’s Compensation, pp. 509-511.
Cunning v. City of Hopkins 103 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1960
Cunning v. City of Hopkins 103 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1960
4 *321 Mr. Justice Stone in Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 209 Minn. 596 , , refers to the significance of the fact that in defining compensable accident the Workmen’s Compensation Act makes no mention of cause or causation as such.
Nelson v. City of St. Paul 81 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1957
Nelson v. City of St. Paul 81 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1957
2 Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 209 Minn. 596 , ; Corcoran v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Joint Council, 209 Minn. 289 , ; Olson v. Trinity Lodge No. 282, A. F. & A. M. 226 Minn. 141 , 32 N. W. (2d) 255 .
Petro v. Martin Baking Co. 58 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1953
Petro v. Martin Baking Co. 58 N.W.2d 731 Minn. 1953
Olson v. Trinity Lodge, 226 Minn. 141 , 32 N. W. (2d) 255 ; Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 209 Minn. 596 , .
Todeva v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 45 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1951
Todeva v. Oliver Iron Mining Co. 45 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1951
5 See, Olson v. Trinity Lodge, 226 Minn. 141, 144 , 32 N. W. (2d) 255, 257 ; Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 209 Minn. 596 , ; Horovitz, Current Trends in Workmen’s Compensation, pp. 509-511.
Goodland v. L. S. Donaldson Co. 36 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1949
Goodland v. L. S. Donaldson Co. 36 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1949
The rule is laid down in Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 209 Minn. 596, 600 , , as follows: “* * * Noncompensable are cases where the assailant was motivated by personal animosity toward his victim, arising from circumstances wholly unconnected with the employment.
Breimhorst v. Beckman 35 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1949
Breimhorst v. Beckman 35 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1949
In Corcoran v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Joint Council, 209 Minn. 289 , , and Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 209 Minn. 596 , , the injuries were held to arise out of the employment although they were inflicted by the criminal acts of third parties.
Fisher v. Fisher 32 N.W.2d 424 Minn. 1948
Fisher v. Fisher 32 N.W.2d 424 Minn. 1948
In one of our late cases, which carefully considers the meaning of the phrase “arising out of and in the course of” employment, Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 209 Minn. 596, 598 , , we said: “It is apparent that the new standard 'arising out of and in the course of’ employment does not require that the latter be the proximate cause of injury.
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
Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 209 Minn. 596 , ; Horovitz, Current Trends in Workmen’s Compensation, pp. 509-511.
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
Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 209 Minn. 596 , .
Cavilla v. Northern States Power Co. 6 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1942
Cavilla v. Northern States Power Co. 6 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1942
Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. 209 Minn. 596 , .