Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lappinen v. Union Ore Co., 29 N.W.2d 8.

61 citing documents.

Minn. 2022
See, (“Where the amount of a liability has not been ascertained, there is no liability for interest thereon prior to the time of its ascertainment.”).
KCP Hastings, LLC v. Cnty. of Dakota 931 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2019
KCP Hastings, LLC v. Cnty. of Dakota 931 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2019
Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. , 224 Minn. 395 , , 17 (1947).
Graff v. Robert M. Swendra Agency, Inc. 800 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 2011
Soderbeck v. Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. 793 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Soderbeck v. Center for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. 793 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“[Tjhere can be no liability for interest where there is a liability to pay money, but no express promise to pay interest thereon, no statutory obligation to do so, and no default consisting of failure to pay the money when due.” Lappinen v. Union Ore Co., 224 Minn. 395, 413 , 29 *
Lovering-Johnson, Inc. v. City of Prior Lake 558 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Lovering-Johnson, Inc. v. City of Prior Lake 558 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Lappinen v. Union Ore Co., 224 Minn. 395, 407 , (holding that as long as a stipulation remains in effect, it is binding not only on the parties, but on both the district and appellate courts).
Eide v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 492 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Eide v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 492 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Lappinen v. Union Ore Co., 224 Minn. 395, 413
Zontelli & Sons, Inc. v. Fabyanske, Svoboda & Westra, P.A. 394 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Zontelli & Sons, Inc. v. Fabyanske, Svoboda & Westra, P.A. 394 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gethsemane Lutheran Church v. Zacho, 253 Minn. 469, 479-80 , (citing Lappinen v. Union Ore Co., 224 Minn. 395
Abendroth v. NAT. FARMERS U. PROP. & CAS. CO. 363 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Abendroth v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. 363 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Abendroth v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. 363 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lappinen v. Union Ore Co., 224 Minn. 395, 407
Abendroth v. NAT. FARMERS U. PROP. & CAS. CO. 363 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lappinen v. Union Ore Co., 224 Minn. 395, 407
Fischer v. Malleable Iron Range Co. 225 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1975
Fischer v. Malleable Iron Range Co. 225 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1975
Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395 , Chillstrom v. Trojan Seed Co. 242 Minn. 471
Lundgren v. PAUL SCHMITT MUSIC COMPANY 207 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1973
Lundgren v. PAUL SCHMITT MUSIC COMPANY 207 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1973
Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395
Integrity Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. 160 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1968
Integrity Mutual Insurance v. State Farm Mutual Insurance 160 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1968
Integrity Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. 160 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1968
465 ; Lappinen v. Union Ore Co., 224 Minn. 395 , ; Hallada v. Great N. Ry.
Integrity Mutual Insurance v. State Farm Mutual Insurance 160 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1968
549.09, provides as follows: “When the judgment is for the recovery of money, including a judgment for the recovery of taxes, interest from the time of the verdict or report until, judgment is finally entered shall be computed by the clerk and added thereto.” Integrity relies for recovery on the following cases: Swanson v. Andrus, 83 Minn. 505 , ; Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8 ; Hallada v. G. N. Ry.
Telle v. NORTHFIELD IRON COMPANY 153 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1967
Telle v. NORTHFIELD IRON COMPANY 153 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1967
Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395, 407 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8, 17 .
Youngner v. State 147 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1966
Youngner v. State 147 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1966
ompensation fund on: “Past due weekly installments of dependency compensation as they *343 became payable from the date said installments should have commenced (November 7, 1956 — one week after last installment from respondent-employer was due) to the date of payment (December 31, 1964).” The Industrial Commission based its determination on the decision of this court in Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8 , 15 W. C. D. 19, indicating that the facts in this case are similar
Gerhardt v. Welch 125 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1964
Gerhardt v. Welch 125 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 1964
2 Hartman v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 243 Minn. 264 , 67 N. W. (2d) 656 ; Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8 .
Johnson v. D. B. Rosenblatt, Inc. 122 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1963
Johnson v. D. B. Rosenblatt, Inc. 122 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1963
6 The rules are well stated in Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395, 404 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8, 15 , 32 Minn. L. Rev. 420 , where we said: “It is too well settled to require citation of authority that the workmen’s compensation act should be liberally construed so as to afford coverage of all cases reasonably within its purview.
Fink v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 115 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1962
Fink v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 115 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1962
Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8 .
Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Morse 111 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1961
Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Morse 111 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1961
6 Swanson v. Andrus, 83 Minn. 505 , ; Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8 ; 10 Dunnell, Dig.
Knopp v. Gutterman 102 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1960
Knopp v. Gutterman 102 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1960
Recently in Kolbeck v. Myhra, 255 Minn. 341, 344 , 96 N. W. (2d) 633, 635 , this court said: “* * * Since workmen’s compensation statutes are highly remedial and humanitarian in purpose, they must be given a broad, liberal construction in the interests of the workmen.” In Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395, 404 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8, 15 , we said: “It is too well settled to require citation of authority that the workmen’s compensation act should be liberally construed so as to afford coverage o
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
2 Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8 ; Burke v. B. F. Nelson Mfg.
Gethsemane Lutheran Church v. Zacho 92 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1958
Gethsemane Lutheran Church v. Zacho 92 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1958
4 Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8 .
Wanda Gladys Beach v. American Steel & Wire Division of United States Steel Corp. & State Treasurer 78 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1956
Distinguished Wanda Gladys Beach v. American Steel & Wire Division of United States Steel Corp. & State Treasurer 78 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1956
The case of Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8 , clearly is distinguishable on the facts.
Casey v. Northern States Power Co. 77 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1956
Casey v. Northern States Power Co. 77 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 1956
Employee contends that, where conflicting medical testimony shows that an employee has either a 25 percent or 50 percent permanent disability of the back, the commission may not, without supporting competent evidence, make a “compromise” finding of 30 percent disability, citing Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8 , as authority for that contention.
Hartman v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 67 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1954
Hartman v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 67 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1954
That the full literal implication of the language was not intended is evidence from the later case of Lappinen v. Union Ore Co. 224 Minn. 395 , 29 N. W. (2d) 8 .
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 & C