Legal Opinion

Henning v. Wineman

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 20, 1981No. 51053PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMDAHL, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court, Fifth Judicial District, denying Intervenor’s motion for amended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment, or for a new trial.

The issue is whether the district court has the jurisdiction to allocate the proceeds of a third party settlement between amounts recoverable under workers’ compensation and amounts not so recoverable. In our opinion, the district court has that authority. The order of the district court is, therefore, affirmed.

Plaintiff Henning was injured in an automobile accident in 1973,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Naig v. Bloomington SanitationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. Lang v. William Bros Boiler & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  3. Rascop v. Nationwide CarriersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  4. Agin v. HeywardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
  5. State v. BachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  2. Wos v. E. M. A. Ex Rel. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  3. Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  4. Kottka v. PPG Industries, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1986
  5. DePuy, Inc. v. FarmerIndiana Supreme Court · 2006

30 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