Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co., 45 N.W.2d 640.

29 citing documents.

Thanh Le v. Kurt Manufacturing 557 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1996
Thanh Le v. Kurt Manufacturing 557 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1996
2 (1996); Franke, d at 377 ; Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co., 232 Minn. 350, 359
Sazama Excavating, Inc. v. Wausau Insurance Companies 521 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Sazama Excavating, Inc. v. Wausau Insurance Companies 521 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning, 232 Minn. 350 , 359 n. 4, , 647 n. 3 (1951).
Franke v. Fabcon, Inc. 509 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1993
Franke v. Fabcon, Inc. 509 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1993
Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co., 232 Minn. 350, 359 , (a settlement stipulation which is fair and reasonable and in conformity with the Act is valid, “if it does not purport to establish such finality of settlement as to preclude a reopening of any award * * *.”).
Hagen v. Venem 366 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1985
Hagen v. Venem 366 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1985
See Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co., 232 Minn. 350, 360-61
State, Department of Employment Security v. Zroker 159 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1968
State, Department of Employment Security v. Zroker 159 N.W.2d 190 Minn. 1968
1, which reads: “An agreement between an employee or his dependent and the employer or insurer to settle any claim for compensation under this chapter is valid where it has been executed in writing and signed by the parties, and the commission has approved the settlement and made an award thereon.” See, Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co. 232 Minn. 350 , 45 N. W. (2d) 640 .
Orth v. Shiely Petter Crushed Stone Co. 104 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1960
Orth v. Shiely Petter Crushed Stone Co. 104 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1960
Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co. 232 Minn. 350 , 45 N. W. (2d) 640 .
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
tal and permanent loss of mental faculties, or any other injury which totally incapacitates the employee from working at an occupation which brings him an income constitutes total disability.” 4 Skoog v. Schmahl, 198 Minn. 504 , , 9 Minn. W. C. D. 309; Rikala v. Rundquist Const. Co. 247 Minn. 401 , 77 N. W. (2d) 551 , 19 Minn. W. C. D. 18; Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co. 232 Minn. 350 , 45 N. W. (2d) 640 , 16 Minn. W. C. D. 242.
Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 101 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1960
Gillette v. Harold, Inc. 101 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1960
They argue that the employee’s disability here is one which merely arises contemporaneously with the employment or collateral to it and point to the language used in Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co. 232 Minn. 350, 362 , 45 N. W. (2d) 640, 649 , to the effect that: “* * * Degenerative diseases such as arteriosclerosis which progress normally and exist independently of an accidental injury do not constitute a preexisting disability within the meaning of the compensation act.” It is well
Orth v. Shiely Petter Crushed Stone Co. 91 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1958
Orth v. Shiely Petter Crushed Stone Co. 91 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1958
See, Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co. 232 Minn. 350 , 45 N. W. (2d) 640 .
Orbke v. Morrison Garment Co. 84 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1957
Orbke v. Morrison Garment Co. 84 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1957
He cites the rule laid down with reference to degenerative diseases in Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co. 232 Minn. 350 , 45 N. W. (2d) 640 , and reiterated in the Rikala case.
Rikala v. Rundquist Construction Co. 77 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1956
Rikala v. Rundquist Construction Co. 77 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1956
See, Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co. 232 Minn. 350 , 45 N. W. (2d) 640 ; Enkel v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 221 Minn. 532 , 22 N. W. (2d) 635 ; Skoog v. Schmahl, 198 Minn. 504 , .
Berg v. Ullevig 70 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1955
Berg v. Ullevig 70 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1955
Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co. 232 Minn. 350 , 45 N. W. (2d) 640 ; Smith v. Twin City Motor Bus Co. 228 Minn. 14 , 36 N. W. (2d) 22 .
State ex rel. Independent School District No. 6 v. Johnson 65 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1954
State ex rel. Independent School District No. 6 v. Johnson 65 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1954
See, Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co. 232 Minn. 350, 355, note 2 , 45 N. W. (2d) 640, 645, note 1 ; see, also, Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Glander, 149 Ohio St.
Chillstrom v. Trojan Seed Co. 65 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1954
Chillstrom v. Trojan Seed Co. 65 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1954
If other specific facts were desired by relator to be found, application should have been made to the commission for such finding.” In Senske v. Fairmont & Waseca Canning Co. 232 Minn. 350, 361 , 45 N. W. (2d) 640, 648 , we pointed out the importance of adequate findings, stating: “* * * Disability settlements deserve careful consideration by the commission and by this court, and when their approval is denied the grounds for the denial should be stated.
Knuth v. Murphy 54 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1952