Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros.green2 sentences2014In O’Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889 (Minn. 1996), the supreme court affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment on a company’s common-enterprise defense by saying, in essence, that the material facts are undisputed and the disputed facts are immaterial. 2014The supreme court has set forth the three requirements of the common-enterprise test: “‘(1) The employers must be engaged on the same project; (2) The employees must be working together (common activity); and (3) In such fashion that they are subject to the same or similar hazards.’” Id. at 894 (quoting McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506 , 93 N.W.2d 552, 556 (1958)). | 3 | 4 |
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp.green2 sentences2017In McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., we set out a three-part -test for the common-enterprise defense: 1) The employers must be engaged on the same project; 2) The employees must be working, together (common activity); and 3) In such fashion that they are subject to the same of similar hazards. 93 N.W.2d at 556 . 2015The common-enterprise doctrine bars a damages claim based on the negligence of a third party’s employee when three factors are satisfied: “(1) The employers must be engaged on the same project; (2) The employees must be [w]orking together (common activity); and (3) In such fashion that they are subject to the same or similar hazards.” McCourtie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506 , 93 N.W.2d 552, 556 (1958). | 3 | 3 |
LeDoux v. M.A. Mortenson Co.green2 sentences2016Minn. Stat. § 176.061 , subds. 1, 4 (2014); LeDoux, 835 N.W.2d at 22 . 2016LeDoux, 835 N.W.2d at 23 (reversing summary judgment on the common-enterprise doctrine where 6 two groups of employees worked on different parts of a building, did not know each other’s names, and did not help each other). | 1 | 1 |
Lishinski v. City of Duluthgreen1 sentence2015On appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment, we review “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Lishinski v. City of Duluth, 634 N.W.2d 456, 458 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 2002). “[A] denial of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Martin v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Auth., 566 N.W.2d 719, 720 (Minn. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Authoritygreen1 sentence2015On appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment, we review “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Lishinski v. City of Duluth, 634 N.W.2d 456, 458 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 2002). “[A] denial of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Martin v. Spirit Mountain Recreation Area Auth., 566 N.W.2d 719, 720 (Minn. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gleason v. Geary
green
2 sentences2015The Gleason decision explains that application of the common-enterprise doctrine is proper when “the work[ers] so employed should stand in the same relation to each other and to their employers as if they were working for a common employer.” Gleason, 214 Minn. at 509 , 8 N.W.2d at 813 . 2015The Gleason decision explains that application of the common-enterprise doctrine is proper when “the work[ers] so employed should stand in the same relation to each other and to their employers as if they were working for a common employer.” Gleason, 214 Minn. at 509 , 8 N.W.2d at 813 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.