DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 103 N.W.2d 876.

25 citing documents.

  • Mark Schaefer v. Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Mark Schaefer v. Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    Olson & Sons, Inc., 285 Minn. 260, 262, (holding that the WCA does not bar compensation to an employee injured during working hours where he is a victim, whether participating or innocent, of pranks or horseplay); Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306, 319, (“[H]orseplay which is a part of the employment environment, do[es] not justify a denial of compensation [under the WCA].”).
  • Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy 840 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2013
  • 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
    See Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306, 318 , (right to receive workers’ compensation benefits exists by virtue of the Workers’ Compensation Act).
  • 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
    Other cases have analyzed the assault exception by applying a fundamental question of whether the claimant was injured “not merely while he was at his employment, but because he was at his employment, in touch with associations and conditions inseparable from it.” Dufloth v. City of Monticello, 308 Minn. 451, 451 , Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306, 314-15
  • Parker v. Tharp 409 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Parker v. Tharp 409 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Subsequent cases have stated that the fundamental question is whether the claimant was injured, “not merely while he was at his employment, but because he was at his employment, in touch with associations and conditions inseparable from it.” Dufloth v. City of Monticello, 308 Minn. 451 , Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306, 314-15 , Petro v. Martin Baking Co., 239 Minn. 307, 311
  • Kerpen v. Bill Boyer Ford, Inc. 232 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1975
  • Kerpen v. Bill Boyer Ford, Inc. 232 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1975
    There is, as relator contends, some similarity to the horseplay situation in Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306 , but the antics of the young people in that case, causing them to stand rather than remain seated in the truck from which one of them fell while the truck was moving, are in fact distinguishable.
  • Bartley v. C-H Riding Stables, Inc. 206 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1973
  • Bartley v. C-H Riding Stables, Inc. 206 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 1973
    Thus, Walsh was distinguished from Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306 , where the court held that an employee would be compensated if the injury resulted from horseplay which was part of the working environment, the hazard of which could be reasonably anticipated by the employer.
  • Walsh v. Chas. Olson & Sons, Inc. 172 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1969
  • Walsh v. Chas. Olson & Sons, Inc. 172 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1969
    The referee, relying on Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306 , 103 N. W. (2d) 876 , nevertheless awarded benefits upon the theory that “[t]he activity was nothing more than pure and simple ‘horse play’ ” by a young, inquisitive, and naturally curious boy attracted to power equipment in his employment environment.
  • Jolly v. Jesco, Inc. 166 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1969
  • Jolly v. Jesco, Inc. 166 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1969
    The thrust of relator’s contention is that at the time the employer took its appeal to this court, the law on the subject of awarding benefits to aggressors in workmen’s compensation cases was fully settled by our de *141 cisions in Petro v. Martin Baking Co. 239 Minn. 307 , 58 N. W. (2d) 731 , and Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306 , 103 N. W. (2d) 876 .
  • Snyder v. General Paper Corporation 152 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1967
  • Snyder v. General Paper Corporation 152 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1967
    * * * We prefer a liberal construction of the statute consistent with its history and general policy rather than a strict and literal interpretation based on the tort law of master and servant.” See, Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306 , 103 N. W. (2d) 876 .
  • Jones v. Schiek's Cafe 152 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1967
  • Jones v. Schiek's Cafe 152 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 1967
    1 Respondent employee cites in further support of the decision: Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306 , 103 N. W. (2d) 876 ; Johannsen v. Acton Const. Co. Inc. 264 Minn. 540 , 119 N. W. (2d) 826 ; Nelson v. City of St.
  • Jolly v. Jesco, Inc. 135 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1965
  • Jolly v. Jesco, Inc. 135 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 1965
    1 Furthermore, since Petro and Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306 , 103 N. W. (2d) 876 , where the problem was again extensively reviewed and the intention of the statutory provision under review examined, the legislature has not seen fit to provide that aggression, unlawful conduct, or willful intention to injure another be a defense to recovery of benefits.
  • Gagne v. Oreck 122 N.W.2d 589 Minn. 1963
  • Gagne v. Oreck 122 N.W.2d 589 Minn. 1963
    722 , 105 S. W. (2d) 611 ; Goodland v. L. S. Donaldson Co. 227 Minn. 583 , 36 N. W. (2d) 4 ; Cunning v. City of Hopkins, 258 Minn. 306 , 103 N. W. (2d) 876 .