Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Franke v. Fabcon, Inc., 509 N.W.2d 373.

29 citing documents.

Galen T. Block, Minn. 2019
See Franke v. Fabcon, Inc., Jones v. Schiek’s Cafe, – 59 (Minn. 1967).
Noga v. Minn. Vikings Football Club 931 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2019
Noga v. Minn. Vikings Football Club 931 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 2019
See, e.g. , Franke v. Fabcon, Inc. , , 376 (Minn. 1993) ("Workers' compensation ...
James W. Stevens, Relator v. S.T. Services and CNA Insurance Companies 851 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 2014
James W. Stevens, Relator v. S.T. Services and CNA Insurance Companies 851 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 2014
Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy 840 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2013
Botler v. Wagner Greenhouses 754 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 2008
Botler v. Wagner Greenhouses 754 N.W.2d 665 Minn. 2008
is social legislation, providing a measure of security to workers injured on the job, with the burden of that expense considered a proportionate part of the expense of production.” Franke v. Fabcon, Inc.
Gluba Ex Rel. Gluba v. Bitzan & Ohren Masonry 735 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2007
Gluba Ex Rel. Gluba v. Bitzan & Ohren Masonry 735 N.W.2d 713 Minn. 2007
See 1 Larson & Larson, supra, § 1.04[2] (noting that the American workers’ compensation system is designed such that “the consumer of a particular product ultimately pays the cost of compensation protection for the workers engaged in its manufacture”); see also Franke v. Fabcon, Inc., (“Workers’ compensation * * * is social legislation, providing a measure of security to workers injured on the job, with the burden of that expense considered a proportionate part of the expense of production.”
Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 705 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2005
Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 705 N.W.2d 746 Minn. 2005
See Dawley, 304 Minn, at 455-56, d at 557 ; Wicken, d at 99 ; see also Franke v. Fabcon, Inc.
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc. 685 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2004
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc. 685 N.W.2d 12 Minn. 2004
at 539 (quoting Franke v. Fabcon, Inc., ): [T]he entire compensation system has been set up and paid for, not by the parties, but by the public.
Correa v. Waymouth Farms, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2003
Correa v. Waymouth Farms, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2003
The purpose of the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act (Act) is to provide “a measure of security to workers injured on the job, with the burden of that expense considered a proportionate part of the expense of production.” (quoting Franke v. Fabcon, Inc., ).
Monson v. White Bear Mitsubishi 663 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
Monson v. White Bear Mitsubishi 663 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
Consequently, the Workers’ Compensation Act “permit[s] adjustment of the award in relation to facts subsequently appearing so as ‘to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.”’ Franke v. Fabcon, Inc., (citations omitted).
Alcozer v. North Country Food Bank 635 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2001
Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. 634 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2001
Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. 634 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2001
Thanh Le v. Kurt Manufacturing 557 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1996
Thanh Le v. Kurt Manufacturing 557 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1996
Preliminarily, it should be remembered “that a workers’ compensation claim is not like a private personal injury tort action” *204 in which settlements put “to rest, once and for all, a dispute between the parties * * ⅞.” Franke v. Fabcon, Inc.
Black v. Honeywell, Inc. 551 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 1996
Black v. Honeywell, Inc. 551 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 1996
Karnes v. Quality Pork Processors 532 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1995
Karnes v. Quality Pork Processors 532 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1995
Consequently, the Workers’ Compensation Act “permit[s] adjustment of the award in relation to facts subsequently appearing so as ‘to assure a compensation proportionate to the degree and duration of disability.’ ” Franke v. Fabcon, Inc., (citations omitted).
Davis v. Scott Moeller Co. 524 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 1994
Davis v. Scott Moeller Co. 524 N.W.2d 464 Minn. 1994
§ 176.461 (1984), “and our case law [has] identified four grounds which could constitute ‘cause,’ namely, (a) fraud, (b) mistake, (c) newly-discovered evidence, and (d) substantial change in the employee’s condition.” Franke v. Fabcon, Inc.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by