TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Swaningson v. District Court of Hennepin County

STATE EX REL. CARL E. SWANINGSON v. DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANOTHER

State ex rel. Swaningson v. Dist. Court of Hennepin Cnty., 178 N.W. 1002 (Minn. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 9, 1920
Docket
No. 21,798
Citations
178 N.W. 1002146 Minn. 4761920 Minn. LEXIS 656
Disposition
Order affirmed.
Headnotes
Workmen’s Compensation Act — rehearing. A settlement with an injured workman for a period of less than six months was approved by the district court within three months after the injury, without formal action brought against the employer under the compensation act. More than a year after the injury the workman applied for a rehearing and the application was heard upon conflicting affidavits. Held,-. The record was not such as to compel the trial court to grant a rehearing. [Reporter.]
Summary
Upon the relation of Carl E. Swaningson the supreme court granted its writ of certiorari directed to the district court for Hennepin county and the Honorable Charles S. Jelley, one of the judges thereof, to review the proceedings in that court in the matter of compensation for injury to relator, as employee, from Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Company, as employer.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The relator was in the employ of the Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Company and was injured on April 5, 1918. He settled with the company, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the settlement was approved by the district court on June 26, 1918, and filed. On May 29, 1919, the relator moved for an order vacating the settlement, and fixing a time and place for rehearing. He claimed fraud and, something in the nature of newly discovered evidence and a disability additional to that known at the time of the settlement. The motion was heard on October 10, 1919, and was denied on November 25, 1919, and the relator appeals.

No formal action was brought against the company under the compensation act. The settlement was for a period less than six months. The application for a rehearing was more than a year after the injury. Waiving all technical questions it is clear that the motion was presented to the court and heard upon conflicting affidavits. The trial court found against the relator. Other questions aside, the record was not such as to compel the trial court to vacate the settlement and give a rehearing.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Johnson v. Iverson221 N.W. 65 (Minn. 1928)

Most recent

  1. Johnson v. Iverson221 N.W. 65 (Minn. 1928)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list