DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co., 19 N.W.2d 795.

27 citing documents.

  • In re the Matter of: Joseph Loren Conner, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Other than citing to Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co. , 220 Minn. 318, 326, for the principle that “[d] ue process requires notice before judgment and an opportunity to be heard in an orderly proceeding adapted to the nature of the case,” mother does not provide any legal analysis to support her position .
  • In Re ZK 695 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • In re the Expulsion of Z.K. 695 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • In Re ZK 695 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co., 220 Minn. 318, 326
  • In re the Expulsion of Z.K. 695 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co., 220 Minn. 318, 326
  • Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc. 685 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2004
  • Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc. 685 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2004
    Due process, “when applied to judicial proceedings means a course of legal conduct consonant with rules and principles established in our system of jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights.” Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co., 220 Minn. 318, 326
  • Peterson v. O.R. Anderberg Construction 586 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1998
  • Peterson v. O.R. Anderberg Construction 586 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1998
    16, 1993); see also Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co., 220 Minn. 318, 326 , (''[d]ue process requires * * * the right of appeal from or review of a decision regarded by a litigant as unjust”).
  • Silva v. Maplewood Care Center 582 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 1998
  • New Creative Enterprises, Inc. v. Dick Hume & Associates, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • New Creative Enterprises, Inc. v. Dick Hume & Associates, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co., 220 Minn. 318, 326
  • Violette v. Midwest Printing Co.-Webb Publishing 415 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1987
  • Violette v. Midwest Printing Co.-Webb Publishing 415 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1987
    Next, the employer and the insurer cite Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Company, 220 Minn. 318 , in support of the contention that a lack of a record *324 of the administrative conference denies due process.
  • Reome v. Levine 379 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Reome v. Levine 379 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co.. 220 Minn. 318
  • Village of Zumbrota v. Johnson 161 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1968
  • Village of Zumbrota v. Johnson 161 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1968
    Bank, 143 Minn. 408 , ; State v. Ernst, 209 Minn. 586 , , 134 A. L. R. 643; Dimke v. Finke, 209 Minn. 29 , ; Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co. 220 Minn. 318 , 19 N. W. (2d) 795 ; 16A C. J. S., Constitutional Law, §§ 569(4) and 571.
  • Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer 147 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1966
  • Hosking v. METROPOLITAN HOUSE MOVERS CORPORATION 138 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1965
  • Hosking v. METROPOLITAN HOUSE MOVERS CORPORATION 138 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 1965
    This court said in Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co. 220 Minn. 318 , 19 N. W. (2d) 795 , that it was unconstitutional for a medical board’s findings to be conclusive upon the Industrial Commission.
  • Gray v. City of St. Paul 84 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1957
  • Gray v. City of St. Paul 84 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1957
    1 Following the amendment of our compensation act by L. 1943, c. 633, eliminating the former classification and specific listing of the diseases considered occupational, this court in Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co. 220 Minn. 318 , 19 N. W. (2d) 795 , and in Sandy v. Walter Butler Shipbuilders, Inc. 221 Minn. 215 , 21 N. W. (2d) 612 , said, in defining occupational diseases, that under the present statutory definition ordinary diseases of life to which all members of the general public are equally e
  • State v. Lorenz 50 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1951
  • State v. Lorenz 50 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1951
    The following have been considered in reaching this opinion: Minn. Const. art. 1, §§ 2, 6, 7; art. 3, § 1; art. 4, § 12; art. 6, §§ 2, 14; M. S. A. 480.04, 480.05, 486.01 to 486.06, 611.07, 632.01, 640.10, 640.11; In re Petition for Integration of the Bar of Minnesota, 216 Minn. 195 , 12 N. W. (2d) 515 ; State v. Fellows, 98 Minn. 179 , , ; Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co. 220 Minn. 318 , 19 N. W. (2d) 795 ; Wallace v. Board of Co. Commrs.
  • Sandy v. Walter Butler Shipbuilders, Inc. 21 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1946
  • Sandy v. Walter Butler Shipbuilders, Inc. 21 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1946
    which are inherent in the employment and which attach to that employment a risk of incurring it [the disease] in excess of that attending employment in general, an award of compensation is not precluded because the risk is one which has not become generally recognized or because, only employees unusually susceptible will suffer from the disease.” In' the recent case of Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co. 220 Minn. 318 , 19 N. W. (2d) 795 , we considered and discussed the 1943 act, and *223 in doing so q