Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pojanowski v. Hart, 178 N.W.2d 913.

24 citing documents.

Anderson v. Frontier Communications 819 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2012
Anderson v. Frontier Communications 819 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2012
Pojanowski v. Hart, 288 Minn. 77, 81 , (citations omitted).
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp. 644 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2002
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp. 644 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2002
See Pojanowski v. Hart, 288 Minn. 77, 80-81 , ("The notice requirement [of Minn.Stat.
Issacson v. Minnetonka, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1987
Issacson v. Minnetonka, Inc. 411 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 1987
The crucial question is whether the employer had “actual knowledge.” In Pojanowski v. Hart, 288 Minn. 77, 81 , we addressed that portion of the notice requirement of section 176.141 as follows: ‘Actual knowledge’ is knowledge of such information as would put a reasonable man on inquiry.
Independent School District No. 14 v. AMPRO Corp. 361 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Grapevine v. City of Worthington 302 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1980
Grapevine v. City of Worthington 302 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1980
No written notice was given within that period, and relators argue that they did not have actual knowledge, defined in Pojanowski v. Hart, 288 Minn. 77 , and Greene v. W & W Generator Rebuilders, 302 Minn. 542 , as such information as would put a reasonable man on inquiry that the disability was work related.
Kahn v. State 289 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
Klawitter v. Straumann 255 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1977
Klawitter v. Straumann 255 N.W.2d 407 Minn. 1977
The principal is in a better position than the broker to determine what imperfections there are and what signatures must be obtained to bring about a valid conveyance.” 288 Minn. 77 , .
Wing v. Control Data Corp. 249 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1976
Wing v. Control Data Corp. 249 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1976
Barnabas Hospital, 291 Minn. 257 , 190 * Pojanowski v. Hart, 288 Minn. 77
Livgard v. Cornelius Co. 243 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1976
Livgard v. Cornelius Co. 243 N.W.2d 309 Minn. 1976
In Pojanowski v. Hart, 288 Minn. 77 , 81 , , 916 (1970), the court discussed the notice requirement of § 176.141 as follows: "* * * 'Actual knowledge' is knowledge of such information as would put a reasonable man on inquiry.
Anderson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 227 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1975
Anderson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 227 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1975
See, Pojanowski v. Hart, 288 Minn. 77 , Davidson v. Bermo, Inc. 272 Minn. 97
Yerhart v. GEO. A. HORMEL & COMPANY 225 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 1975
Yerhart v. GEO. A. HORMEL & COMPANY 225 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 1975
See, Pojanowski v. Hart, 288 Minn. 77 , Davidson v. Bermo, Inc. 272 Minn. 97
Greene v. W & W GENERATOR REBUILDERS 224 N.W.2d 157 Minn. 1974
Greene v. W & W GENERATOR REBUILDERS 224 N.W.2d 157 Minn. 1974
In Pojanowski v. Hart, 288 Minn. 77, 81 , we discussed the notice requirement of § 176.141 as follows: “* * * ‘Actual knowledge’ is knowledge of such information as would put a reasonable man on inquiry.
Kling v. St. Barnabas Hospital 190 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1971
Kling v. St. Barnabas Hospital 190 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1971
Pojanowski v. Hart, 288 Minn. 77 , 178 N. W. (2d) 913 .