Legal Opinion · Dissent

Buck v. Freeman

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 12, 2000No. C9-00-910Published

1DissentAmundson, Judge

I. Common Law Remedy As Affected By Statute

The majority has crafted a well-reasoned affirmance of the district court’s actions. I concur with much of its logic, but have reservations about not applying Minnesota’s own exclusive remedy statute, Minn.Stat. § 176.031 (1998), and Minnesota’s third-party liability statute, Minn.Stat. § 176.061 (1998), as written, but choosing instead to follow what it perceived to be a clear pattern in the statute granting immunity from suit to workers’ compensation insurance carriers. Legislative trends should have no bearing on interpretation of the existing…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Arizonans for Official English v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Fabricius v. Montgomery Elevator CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1963
  3. Kifer v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1985
  4. Nordling v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  5. Donnelly v. Minneapolis Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API