Minnesota Supreme Court, 1920

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

State ex rel. Swaningson v. District Court of Hennepin County
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 9, 1920
146 Minn. 476; 178 N.W. 1002; 1920 Minn. LEXIS 656 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Marshall 8. Snyder, for relator., Lewis Severance, for respondent.

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 1928, 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

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

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

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.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.