Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Youngberg v. Donlin Co., 119 N.W.2d 746.

25 citing documents.

Cindy Ludwig v. Dakota County, Self-Insured by SFM Risk Solutions, Relator Minn. 2026
McConville v. City of St. Paul 528 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1995
McConville v. City of St. Paul 528 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1995
Ramaker v. Marjae, Inc., 301 Minn. 58 , Youngberg v. Donlin Co., 264 Minn. 421
Gibberd Ex Rel. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp. 424 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1988
Gibberd Ex Rel. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp. 424 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 1988
See also Youngberg v. Donlin Co., 264 Minn. 421
Lehn v. Kladt 250 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1977
Lehn v. Kladt 250 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1977
Youngberg v. The Donlin Co. 264 Minn. 421 , Cavilla v. Northern States Power Co. 213 Minn. 331
Williams v. Hoyt Construction Co., Inc. 237 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 1975
Williams v. Hoyt Construction Co., Inc. 237 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 1975
See, generally, Youngberg v. The Donlin Co. 264 Minn. 421 , Nehring v. Minnesota Min.
Tietz v. Hastings Lumber Mart, Inc. 210 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1973
Tietz v. Hastings Lumber Mart, Inc. 210 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1973
ion found that the personal injury did arise out of and in the course of decedent’s employment within the guideline of whether or not the employer derived a direct and substantial benefit from the employees’ attendance at the outing “beyond the intangible value of improvement in the employee’s health or morale that is common to all kinds of recreation and social life.” Youngberg v. The Donlin Co. 264 Minn. 421, 427
Bonfig v. Megarry Brothers, Inc. 199 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1972
Bonfig v. Megarry Brothers, Inc. 199 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1972
Cavilla v. Northern States Power Co. 213 Minn. 331, 336 , Youngberg v. The Donlin Co. 264 Minn. 421, 423
Villebrun v. Fryrear 183 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1970
Villebrun v. Fryrear 183 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1970
In Youngberg v. The Donlin Co. 264 Minn. 421, 425 , 119 N. W. (2d) 746, 749 , this court stated: “From an examination of the authorities which discuss the so-called special errand rule it appears that it has been applied where (a) there is an express or implied request that the service be performed after working hours by an employee who has fixed hours of employ
McDonald v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 183 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1970
McDonald v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 183 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1970
In the more recent case of Youngberg v. The Donlin Co. 264 Minn. 421, 426 , 119 N. W. (2d) 746, 749 , we noted in dictum that— “* * * coverage under the Workmen’s Compensation Act must depend largely upon the relative extent of the employer’s control and supervision and the degree of benefit the employer receives from the activity.
Ethen v. Franklin Manufacturing Company 176 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1970
Ethen v. Franklin Manufacturing Company 176 N.W.2d 72 Minn. 1970
In arriving at our decision, we have weighed the factors which we regard as governing 2 and have concluded that the employer did not derive a substantial and direct benefit from the employee’s attendance at the picnic “beyond the intangible value of improvement in the employee’s health or morale that is common to all kinds of recreation and social life.” Youngberg v. The Donlin Co. 264 Minn. 421, 427 , 119 N. W. (2d) 746, 750 ; United Parcel Service v. Industrial Accident Comm.
Johnson v. RANGE BLACKTOP COMPANY 153 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1967
Johnson v. RANGE BLACKTOP COMPANY 153 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1967
Youngberg v. The Donlin Co. 264 Minn. 421 , 119 N. W. (2d) 746 .
Jonas v. Lillyblad 137 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1965
Jonas v. Lillyblad 137 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1965
Youngberg v. The Donlin Co. 264 Minn. 421 , 119 N. W. (2d) 746 .
Bronson v. Joyner's Silver & Electroplating, Inc. 127 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1964
Bronson v. Joyner's Silver & Electroplating, Inc. 127 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1964
Youngberg v. The Donlin Co. 264 Minn. 421 , 119 N. W. (2d) 746 ; Nehring v. Minnesota Min.