Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 149 N.W.2d 689.

29 citing documents.

Aaron Reimringer, Minn. 2021
No. 11 , Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church
Back v. State 902 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 2017
Back v. State 902 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 2017
two requirements, indicating that exoneration requires the “concurrence of both grounds.” Farrawn v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
State v. Nelson 842 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 2014
Furthermore, Nelson’s interpretation is consistent with Famam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84, 93 , in which we recognized that “the conjunctive ‘and’ ...
Neve v. Austin Daily Herald 552 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Greenway, Etc. v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Greenway Baptist Church v. Industrial Commission 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Kahn v. State 289 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
Kahn v. State 289 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84
Pfeil v. Worthington Lady Elks Lodge No. 2287 260 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1977
Pfeil v. Worthington Lady Elks Lodge No. 2287 260 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1977
See, Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84 , Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , 225 N.W.
Holzemer v. Minnesota Milk Co. 259 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1977
Holzemer v. Minnesota Milk Co. 259 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1977
Edelston v. Builders and Remodelers, Inc., 304 Minn. 550 , Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84
Wangen v. City of Fountain 255 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1977
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
For a thorough discussion of the standard of review and the case law on the question, see Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84 , 21 Dunnell, Dig.
Edelston v. Builders and Remodelers, Inc. 229 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1975
Edelston v. Builders and Remodelers, Inc. 229 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1975
Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84
Lundy v. City of Worthington 226 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1975
Lundy v. City of Worthington 226 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1975
Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84
Mansfield v. Gopher Aviation Company 221 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 1974
Mansfield v. Gopher Aviation Company 221 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 1974
Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84
Dawson v. Eayrs 210 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1973
Dawson v. Eayrs 210 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1973
The facts are not unlike those in Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84 , where we sustained a finding that a boy doing tree trimming on church property was not an independent contractor and was entitled to compensation benéfits.
Ward v. American Leg. Edw. B. Cutter Post 102, Anoka 174 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 1970
Ward v. American Leg. Edw. B. Cutter Post 102, Anoka 174 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 1970
Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84 , 149 N. W. (2d) 689 ; Cosgriff v. Duluth Firemen’s Relief Assn. supra; Schneider v. Salvation Army, 217 Minn. 448 , 14 N. W. (2d) 467 .
Huebner v. Farmers Cooperative Ass'n of Holland 167 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1969
Huebner v. Farmers Cooperative Ass'n of Holland 167 N.W.2d 369 Minn. 1969
See, Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84, 93 , 149 N. W. (2d) 689, 696 , where this court said: “It is clear from a reading of the foregoing statute [§ 176.041] that it excludes employments only if they were both ‘casual’ and are likewise not in the course of the employer’s trade, business, or occupation.” Accord, Amundsen v. Poppe, 227 Minn. 124, 128 , 34 N