DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 5 N.W.2d 499.

49 citing documents.

  • Franke v. Fabcon, Inc. 509 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1993
  • Franke v. Fabcon, Inc. 509 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1993
    Consequently, the Workers’ Compensation Act “permit[s] adjustment of the award in relation to facts subsequently appearing so as ‘to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.’” Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132 , (quoting prior cases).
  • Napper v. Boise Cascade Corp. 348 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1984
  • Napper v. Boise Cascade Corp. 348 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1984
    oad, although not unlimited discretion, in deciding whether or not to vacate an award, and that its primary objective when faced with this issue is “ ‘to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.’ ” Maurer v. Braun’s Locker Plant, (quoting Eigen v. Food Producers, Inc., 308 Minn. 435 , Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129 , ).
  • Maurer v. Braun's Locker Plant 298 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1980
  • Maurer v. Braun's Locker Plant 298 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1980
    3 (1978), the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals may vacate a settlement award “for cause.” In making its determination in this regard, the Court of Appeals’ primary objective is “to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.” E. g., Eigen v. Food Producers, Inc., 308 Minn. 435 , Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132
  • Landon v. Donovan Construction Co. 270 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 1978
  • Landon v. Donovan Construction Co. 270 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 1978
    Wollschlager v. Standard Const. Co. supra; Bohnhoff v. Allan Engineering Co., 304 Minn. 587 , Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129
  • Lubinski v. Bros., Inc. 270 N.W.2d 874 Minn. 1978
  • Eigen v. Food Producers, Inc. 240 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1976
  • Eigen v. Food Producers, Inc. 240 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 1976
    The basic underlying concern in a determination of “cause” is “to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.” Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132
  • Hill v. Conroy Bros. Co., Inc. 237 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1975
  • Hill v. Conroy Bros. Co., Inc. 237 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 1975
    We feel that the commission’s action in this case is consistent with the basic statutory objective for which their discretion is invested, i, e., “to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.” Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132 , Mattson v. Abate, 279 Minn. 287, 292
  • Bohnhoff v. ALLAN ENGINEERING COMPANY 231 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1975
  • Bohnhoff v. ALLAN ENGINEERING COMPANY 231 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1975
    The basic underlying concern in a determination of cause sufficient to set aside an award is “to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.” Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132
  • Bennett v. Hoiseth Motor Sales 224 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1974
  • Bennett v. Hoiseth Motor Sales 224 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1974
    Wollschlager v. Standard Const. Co. 300 Minn. 550 , Walker v. Midwest Foods, 293 Minn. 460 , Mattson v. Abate, 279 Minn. 287 , Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129 , 3 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation, §§ 81.31 to 81.33.
  • Wollschlager v. STANDARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 220 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1974
  • Wollschlager v. STANDARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 220 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1974
    See, among numerous cases, Turner v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 161 , Walker v. Midwest Foods, 293 Minn. 460 , Radzak v. Mercy Hospital, 291 Minn. 189 , Mattson v. Abate, supra; Guptill v. Conlon Const. Co. 239 Minn. 185 , Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129
  • Sandal v. TALLMAN OIL COMPANY 214 N.W.2d 691 Minn. 1974
  • Sandal v. TALLMAN OIL COMPANY 214 N.W.2d 691 Minn. 1974
    And as we said in [Mattson v. Abate, 279 Minn. 287, 292 , ] : “ ‘* * * The basic statutory objective for which this discretion is invested is “to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.” Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499, 501 .
  • Turner v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 213 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1973
  • Turner v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 213 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1973
    Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129 , Bomersine v. Armour & Co. 225 Minn. 157 , 30 N. W. *167 2d 526 (1947); Dudansky v. L. H. Sault Const. Co. 244 Minn. 369 , Jacobson v. Uptown Transfer & Storage Co. 268 Minn. 336 , Jones v. Flour City Ornamental Iron Works, 271 Minn. 42
  • Walker v. Midwest Foods 197 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 1972
  • Walker v. Midwest Foods 197 N.W.2d 430 Minn. 1972
    And as we said in the Mattson case ( 279 Minn. 292 , ): “* * * The basic statutory objective for which this discretion is invested is ‘to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.’ Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499, 501 .
  • Mattson v. Abate 156 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1968
  • Mattson v. Abate 156 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1968
    8 The basic statutory objective for which this discretion is invested is “to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.” Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499, 501 .
  • Jones v. Flour City Ornamental Iron Works 134 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 1965
  • Jones v. Flour City Ornamental Iron Works 134 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 1965
    This court said in the recent case of Jacobson v. Uptown Transfer & Storage Co. 268 Minn. 336, 341 , 129 N. W. (2d) 41 , 44: “The granting of a petition to reopen under this statute rests in the sound discretion of the Industrial Commission.” Many of the applicable rules have also been stated in Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499, 501 , where this court said: “Mason St.
  • Petter v. K. W. McKee, Inc. 133 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1965
  • Petter v. K. W. McKee, Inc. 133 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1965
    See, McGuire v. Viking Tool & Die Co. supra; Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499, 501 , 12 Minn. W. C. D. 366, 369.
  • Nielsen v. Lysne Construction, Inc. 131 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 1964
  • Nielsen v. Lysne Construction, Inc. 131 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 1964
    176.461; Nelson v. C. F. Scully Const. Co. 252 Minn. 518 , 90 N. W. (2d) 903 ; Bomersine v. Armour & Co. 225 Minn. 157 , 30 N. W. (2d) 526 ; Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499 ; Jovanovich v. St.
  • Jacobson v. Uptown Transfer & Storage Co. 129 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 1964
  • Jacobson v. Uptown Transfer & Storage Co. 129 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 1964
    1 Many of the rules applicable are stated in Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499, 501 , where we said: “Mason St.
  • McGuire v. Viking Tool & Die Co. 104 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1960
  • McGuire v. Viking Tool & Die Co. 104 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1960
    This court in Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499, 501 , 12 Minn. W. C. D. 366, 369, indicated that the words “for cause” mean “good cause; that is, some such cause as fraud or surprise so that, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, the award should be vacated and a new hearing had.
  • Nelson v. C. F. Scully Construction Co. 90 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1958
  • Nelson v. C. F. Scully Construction Co. 90 N.W.2d 903 Minn. 1958
    2 Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499 ; Gustafson v. Ziesmer & Vorlander, Inc. 213 Minn. 253 , 6 N. W. (2d) 452 ; Ginsburg v. Byers, 219 Minn. 230 , 17 N. W. (2d) 354 ; Pechavar v. Oliver Iron Min.
  • Chillstrom v. Trojan Seed Co. 65 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1954
  • Chillstrom v. Trojan Seed Co. 65 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1954
    8 Bushnell v. City of Duluth, 241 Minn. 189 , 62 N. W. (2d) 813 ; Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8 ; Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499 ; Corcoran v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Joint Council, 209 Minn. 289 , ; Anderson v. Russell Miller Milling Co. 196 Minn. 358 , ; Anderson v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. 190 Minn. 125 , ; Bliss v. Swift & Co. 189 Minn. 210 , ; Cooper v. Mitchell, 1
  • Gartner v. Hogstad Fish Co. 43 N.W.2d 798 Minn. 1950
  • Gartner v. Hogstad Fish Co. 43 N.W.2d 798 Minn. 1950
    Co. 172 Minn. 46 , ; Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499 ; Batchelder v. N. W. Hanna Fuel Co. 225 Minn. 250 , 30 N. W. (2d) 530 ; Graif v. Alexander, 226 Minn. 519 , 33 N. W. (2d) 702 .
  • Batchelder v. Northwestern Hanna Fuel Co. 30 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1948
  • Batchelder v. Northwestern Hanna Fuel Co. 30 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1948
    Co. 172 Minn. 521 , ; Gustafson v. Ziesmer & Vorlander, Inc. 213 Minn. 253 , 6 N. W. (2d) 452 ; Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 133 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499, 501 .
  • Bomersine v. Armour & Co. 30 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1947
  • Bomersine v. Armour & Co. 30 N.W.2d 526 Minn. 1947
    As stated in Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129, 132 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499 , 501: *161 “* * * That [§ 176.60] means for good cause; that is, some such cause as fraud or surprise so that, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, the award should be vacated and a new hearing had.
  • Skreen v. Rauk 27 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1947
  • Skreen v. Rauk 27 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1947
    Ginsburg v. Byers, 219 Minn. 230 , 17 N. W. (2d) 354 ; Elsenpeter v. Potvin, 213 Minn. 129 , 5 N. W. (2d) 499 .