Legal Opinion
Boltz v. ARMOUR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANY
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 25, 1964No. 38928PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Thomas Gallagher, Justice.
Certiorari to review an order of the Industrial Commission dated October 2, 1962, wherein it denied the petition of employer-relator, Armour Agricultural Chemical Company, made pursuant to Minn. St. 176.13(a, b, c), 1 to join the special compensation fund as an additional party in these proceedings instituted by relator’s employee, John Boltz.
In a memorandum accompanying this order, the commission stated 1
“There was no registration as required by the statute [Minn. St. 176.13], and the liability of the Special Compensation Fund cannot be involved here.”
The facts are…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Warner v. ZaiserSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Yaeger v. Delano Granite WorksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
- Marsolek v. Miller Waste MillsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- McGuire v. Viking Tool & Die Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Kress v. Minneapolis-Moline Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Joyce v. Lewis Bolt & Nut Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Kahn v. State, University of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Christensen v. State, Department of Conservation, Game & FishSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
- Koski v. Erie Mining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- Radzak v. Mercy HospitalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.