Palm v. City of Minneapolis
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1950, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Callahan v. City of Virginia (Minn. 1950)
- Burke v. O'Neil (Minn. 1934)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This ease on the merits comes within the rule stated and applied in McDonald v. City of St. Paul, 82 Minn. 308, 84 N. W. 1022. The evidence supports the verdict, and the record discloses no reversible error. The answer does not present the question whether the rights of the parties are controlled by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the evidence fails to bring them within its provisions. Plaintiff is a retired clergyman, and at the time of his injury was engaged at the instance of the T. M. C. A. of Minneapolis in distributing advertising matter about the city, but whether under employ-
Ordeir affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.