Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Foley v. Honeywell, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 268.

46 citing documents.

Deangelo Profit, Minn. 2023
We have determined that for an employee’s injury resulting from an attack at work to be compensated under the Workers’ Compensation Act , “an injury must arise out of the employment, must be in the course of the employment and must not come within the ‘assault exception.’ ” Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.
Roller-Dick v. Centracare Health Sys. 916 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2018
Roller-Dick v. Centracare Health Sys. 916 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2018
These included obvious or easily understood risks such as "unsafe conditions" in an employer-owned parking ramp, Foley v. Honeywell, Inc. , , 272 (Minn. 1992), an employee's required presence in a high crime area, Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co. , 209 Minn. 596 , 297 N.W.
Hohlt v. University of Minnesota 897 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2017
Kubis v. Community Memorial Hospital Ass'n 897 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2017
Kubis v. Community Memorial Hospital Ass'n 897 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2017
"The 'arising out of requirement ‘connote[s] a causal connection' and the 'in the course of requirement ‘refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the incident causing the injury.’ ” Dykhoff, d at 826 (quoting Gibberd, d at 780 ); see also Foley v. Honeywell, Inc., ("The phrase ‘arising out of’ means that there must be some causal connection between the injury and the employment.”); Kirchner v. Cty.
Hohlt v. University of Minnesota 897 N.W.2d 777 Minn. 2017
Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.
David L. Henson as Trustee for the Estate of Maxwell David Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC, and Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David L. Henson as Trustee for the Estate of Maxwell David Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC, and Third … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An established principle of Minnesota law is that workers’ compensation coverage extends to a 7 “reasonable time both before a person actually begins doing work on the premises and after the work day or shift is complete.” Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.
Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy 840 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2013
Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy 840 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2013
A. We have said that “[t]he phrase ‘arising out of means that there must be some causal connection between the injury and the employment.” 1 Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.
Anderson v. Frontier Communications 819 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2012
Roemhildt v. Gresser Companies, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2007
Roemhildt v. Gresser Companies, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 2007
4 , 271 n. 2 (Minn.1992) (footnote added).
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
This system is based on a compromise between employees and employers and involves “a mutual renunciation of common law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike.” Minn. Stat. § 176.001 (2004); see also Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.
Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 686 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, LLC 686 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.
Meintsma v. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. 684 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2004
Meintsma v. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. 684 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2004
1 (2002); see also Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.
Meinstma v. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Meinstma v. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The WCA was “designed to give workers immediate recovery for their injuries suffered while on the job, without regard to the common law’s ‘three evil sisters,’ contributory negligence, the fellow-servant rule, and assumption of risk.” Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.
U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. James Courtney Law Office, P.A. 662 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 2003
U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. James Courtney Law Office, P.A. 662 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 2003
Dohney v. Allstate Insurance Co. 632 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 2001
Dohney v. Allstate Insurance Co. 632 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 2001
Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc. 577 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1998
Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc. 577 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 1998
See Foley v. Honeywell, Inc., , (Minn.1992).
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co v. Seagate Technology, Inc. 570 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co v. Seagate Technology, Inc. 570 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Co., (holding employee’s claims barred by employee exclusion clause because all employee’s theories based on conduct allegedly occurring at workplace during employment and resulting in injuries and damages); Foley v. Honeywell, Inc., (holding injuries occur in course of person’s employment when they occur on employer’s premises, and during hours of service).
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1996
Watson v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 553 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1996
See Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.
In Re Butler 552 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1996
Shields v. Goldetsky 552 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1996
In Re Butler 552 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1996
Shields v. Goldetsky 552 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 1996
O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros. 549 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1996
O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros. 549 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1996
§ 176.001 (1984) that the Act is to be construed in a nondiscriminatory manner.” , 271-72 n. 2 (Minn.1992).
Malmin v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. 541 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Malmin v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. 541 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Foley v. Honeywell, Inc., (citing Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -80 (Minn.1988)).
State v. Nodes 538 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Nodes 538 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Foley v. Honeywell, Inc., (accepting certification of civil question as important because its resolution will have statewide impact); see Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., -80 (Minn.1988) (defining civil question as doubtful if no controlling precedent exists, or if it is a question of first impression with substantia
Yunker v. Honeywell, Inc. 496 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Yunker v. Honeywell, Inc. 496 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.
Fernandez v. Ramsey County 495 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Fernandez v. Ramsey County 495 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.