Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jacka v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 580 N.W.2d 27.

30 citing documents.

William H. Johnson, Minn. 2021
(quoting Minn. Stat. § 176.135, subd.
Margaret Leuthard, Minn. 2021
O P I N I O N MOORE, III, J. This case asks us to decide whether the rare case exception to the treatment parameters for compensable, work-related injuries, see Jacka v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. , –36 (Minn. 1998), can be raised for the first time on appeal.
Minn. 2021
(app lying rational basis to determine the constitutionality of healthcare regulations); see also Mfg.
Cambria Company LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dist., d 38, 44 (Minn. App. 2014) ().
Johnson v. Darchuks Fabrication, Inc. 926 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2019
Johnson v. Darchuks Fabrication, Inc. 926 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2019
5 (2018) ; Jacka v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. , , 35 (Minn. 1998).
Builders Association of the Twin Cities v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry 872 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Builders Association of the Twin Cities v. Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry 872 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A rule is invalid when it is “not 7 rationally related to the objective sought to be achieved.”
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jacka v. Coca–Cola Bottling Co.
State of Minnesota v. William John Boyland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. William John Boyland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The supreme court has also stated that “[t]he certification process is not a substitute for the normal appellate process.”
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The supreme court has stated, “The certification process is not a substitute for the normal appellate process nor a method for securing advisory opinions.”
Hoffman v. Northern States Power Co. 743 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Hoffman v. Northern States Power Co. 743 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Welfare of the Child of L.M.L. 730 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of the Child of L.M.L. 730 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Tennin 674 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2004
State v. Tennin 674 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2004
Pelowski v. K-Mart Corp. 627 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2001
Pelowski v. K-Mart Corp. 627 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2001
The rules “provide the yardstick by which the treatment offered by the health care provider is measured” and aid the trier of fact “in identifying reason *93 able and appropriate medical treatment.”
Vezina v. Best Western Inn, Maplewood 601 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1999
Vezina v. Best Western Inn, Maplewood 601 N.W.2d 191 Minn. 1999
-80 (Minn.1988); F & H Investment Co. v. Sachman-Gilliland Corp., 305 Minn. 155, 158
Minnesota Twins Partnership v. State Ex Rel. Hatch 592 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1999
Minnesota Twins Partnership v. State Ex Rel. Hatch 592 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1999
Asti v. Northwest Airlines 588 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1999
Asti v. Northwest Airlines 588 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1999
While we agree with the WCCA’s holding that Asti failed to satisfy the departure requirements, we conclude that the facts before us present one of “those rare cases in which departure [from the treatment parameter rules] is necessary to obtain proper treatment.” -36 (Minn.1998).