Gartner v. Hogstad Fish Co.
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 1969, 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.
- Nierengarten v. State, Department of Highways (Minn. 1969)
- Gartner v. Hogstad Fish Co. (Minn. 1950)
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
Respondents move to have the writ of certiorari issued herein discharged. It was issued by this court on May 17, 1949, for the purpose of reviewing two orders of the industrial commission, one dated and served January 28, 1949, and the other dated and served March 18, 1949. The order of January 28, 1949, denied relator compensation; the order of March 18, 1949, denied relator’s petition for reargument.
On April 18, 1949, this court granted relator an extension of time in which to serve a writ of certiorari on the industrial commission. The writ subsequently issued was within the time thus extended.
M. S. A. 176.61 provides that a writ of certiorari to review an order of the industrial commission must be applied for within 30 days after service of the commission’s order. We have held that a writ of certiorari may not be issued subsequent to such prescribed 30-day period. State ex rel. Virginia & Rainy Lake Co. v. Bashko, 127 Minn. 519, 148 N. W. 1082; Lickfett v. Jorgenson, 179 Minn. 321, 229 N. W. 138. It is clear from the statute and the above decisions that this court is without power to review the order of January 28, 1949.
However, the order of March 18, 1949, may be reviewable here. While the writ to review the same was not issued here until May 17, 1949, the time for such purpose had been extended by this court to include such date.
We have not determined that such an order is reviewable here. However, in Lickfett v. Jorgenson, 179 Minn. 321, 229 N. W. 138, we examined such an order upon the merits and upheld it. Based thereon, we are of the opinion that the present motion should be denied, without prejudice, and with leave to respondents to renew the same at the time of the oral argument herein. The second question above outlined may be then decided.
So ordered.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.