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.
10 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oelschlager v. Magnusongreen2 sentences1995We have interpreted the language of subdivision 3 in Oelschlager v. Magnuson, 528 N.W.2d 895 (Minn.App.1995), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 1995) and concluded that an action against the abuser’s employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior was not among the actions covered by the delayed discovery statute. 1995Id. at 901 . 1 *855 Accordingly, the two-year limitation period for battery actions, Minn.Stat. § 541.07 subd. 1, was applicable to M.L.’s respondeat superior claim, see Kaiser v. Memorial Blood Ctr., 486 N.W.2d 762, 767 (Minn.1992) (statute of limitation for respon-deat superior claims ordinarily same as the underlying cause of action), and that period had expired by the time M.L. commenced his suit against Redeemer. | 1 | 2 |
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.green2 sentences1986See Stuempges, 297 N.W.2d at 257 . 1986See Stuempges, 297 N.W.2d at 257 . | 1 | 2 |
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc.green1 sentence2007Contra Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women’s Ctr., Inc., 637 N.W.2d 270, 277 (Minn.2002) (rejecting public policy requirement of Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a)). | 1 | 1 |
Cokley v. City of Otsegogreen1 sentence2007A “report” under Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a) “must ‘blow the whistle’ by notifying the employer of a violation of law that is a clearly mandated public policy.” Cokley v. City of Otsego, 623 N.W.2d 625, 631 (Minn.App.2001), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Obst v. Microtron, Inc.green1 sentence2001See Obst v. Microtron, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 196, 200 (Minn.2000) (determining whether plaintiff reported a violation of law); Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897, 902 (Minn.1998) (finding vague reports of reprehensible conduct, where no statute or rule is violated by such conduct, are not reports); Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A., 586 N.W.2d 811, 815 (Minn.App.1998) (holding complaint of internal payroll deduction practices did not implicate public policy). | 1 | 1 |
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A.green1 sentence2001See Obst v. Microtron, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 196, 200 (Minn.2000) (determining whether plaintiff reported a violation of law); Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897, 902 (Minn.1998) (finding vague reports of reprehensible conduct, where no statute or rule is violated by such conduct, are not reports); Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A., 586 N.W.2d 811, 815 (Minn.App.1998) (holding complaint of internal payroll deduction practices did not implicate public policy). | 1 | 1 |
Hedglin v. City of Willmargreen1 sentence2001See Obst v. Microtron, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 196, 200 (Minn.2000) (determining whether plaintiff reported a violation of law); Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897, 902 (Minn.1998) (finding vague reports of reprehensible conduct, where no statute or rule is violated by such conduct, are not reports); Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A., 586 N.W.2d 811, 815 (Minn.App.1998) (holding complaint of internal payroll deduction practices did not implicate public policy). | 1 | 1 |
M.L. v. Magnusongreen1 sentence1995M.L v. Magnuson, 531 N.W.2d 849, 854 (Minn.App.1995), review denied (Minn. July 20, 1995); Oelschlager v. Magnuson, 528 N.W.2d 895, 901-02 (Minn.App.1995), review denied (Minn. April 27, 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Kaiser v. Memorial Blood Center of Minneapolis, Inc.green1 sentence1995Id. at 901 . 1 *855 Accordingly, the two-year limitation period for battery actions, Minn.Stat. § 541.07 subd. 1, was applicable to M.L.’s respondeat superior claim, see Kaiser v. Memorial Blood Ctr., 486 N.W.2d 762, 767 (Minn.1992) (statute of limitation for respon-deat superior claims ordinarily same as the underlying cause of action), and that period had expired by the time M.L. commenced his suit against Redeemer. | 1 | 1 |
National Surety Corp. v. Lybrandgreen2 sentences1990Negligence of the employer is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant’s failure to perform his contract and report the truth. 256 A.D. at 235-36 , 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563 (citation omitted). 1990Negligence of the employer is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant’s failure to perform his contract and report the truth. 256 A.D. at 235-36 , 9 N.Y.S.2d at 563 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vaca v. Sipes
green
2 sentences1985Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 184 , 87 S.Ct. 903, 913 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967); Cunningham v. Federal Cartridge Corporation, 265 Minn. 534 , 122 N.W.2d 208 (Minn.1963). 1985Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 184 , 87 S.Ct. 903, 913 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967); Cunningham v. Federal Cartridge Corporation, 265 Minn. 534 , 122 N.W.2d 208 (Minn.1963). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Cunningham v. Federal Cartridge Corporation
neutral
2 sentences1985Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 184 , 87 S.Ct. 903, 913 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967); Cunningham v. Federal Cartridge Corporation, 265 Minn. 534 , 122 N.W.2d 208 (Minn.1963). 1985Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 184 , 87 S.Ct. 903, 913 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967); Cunningham v. Federal Cartridge Corporation, 265 Minn. 534 , 122 N.W.2d 208 (Minn.1963). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Seitz v. Frey
green
2 sentences1958Rev. 594 , the employer's insurer brought the action, and with respect to its rights we said: "* * * Plaintiff in this action had insured the employer, and, in discharge of its contract obligation thereunder to protect the company from such liabilities, assumed the payment of the judgment, and under the statute has become subrogated to the right of the employer to reimbursement from the third party wrongdoer. " (Italics supplied.) After discussing the respective rights of employee and employer, we said ( 152 Minn. 200 , 188 N.W. 266 ): "* * * The remedy is that of the employe, passing to the e 1958Rev. 594 , the employer’s insurer brought the action, and with respect to its rights we said: “* * * Plaintiff in this action had insured the employer, and, in discharge of its contract obligation thereunder to protect the company from such liabilities, assumed the payment of the judgment, and under the statute has become subrogated to the right of the employer to reimbursement from the third party wrongdoer.” (Italics supplied.) After discussing the respective rights of employee and employer, we said ( 152 Minn. 200 , 188 N. W. 266 ): “* * * The remedy is that of the employe, passing to the e | 1 | 1958–1958 |
City of Red Wing v. Eichinger
green
2 sentences1958In fact the provisions of the act on this subject are no doubt merely declaratory of the common law rule of subrogation, available to the employer without act of the legislature.” In City of Red Wing v. Eichinger, 163 Minn. 54 , 203 N. W. 622 , the city employed one Haga as a street sweeper. 1958In fact the provisions of the act on this subject are no doubt merely declaratory of the common law rule of subrogation, available to the employer without act of the legislature.” In City of Red Wing v. Eichinger, 163 Minn. 54 , 203 N. W. 622 , the city employed one Haga as a street sweeper. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
El Queeno Distributing Co. v. Christgau
neutral
2 sentences1956The pertinent provisions of that section are as follows: “Subd. 10. ‘Employer’ means: * * *; “(4) Any employing unit which, together with one or more other employing units, is owned or controlled (by legally enforceable means or otherwise) directly or indirectly by the same interests, or which owns or controls one or more other employing units (by legally enforceable means or otherwise) and which, if treated as a single unit with such other employing units or interests or both, would be an employer under clause (1) of this subdivision;” *285 Section 268.04, subd. 10 (4), has heretofore been in 1956The pertinent provisions of that section are as follows: “Subd. 10. ‘Employer’ means: * * *; “(4) Any employing unit which, together with one or more other employing units, is owned or controlled (by legally enforceable means or otherwise) directly or indirectly by the same interests, or which owns or controls one or more other employing units (by legally enforceable means or otherwise) and which, if treated as a single unit with such other employing units or interests or both, would be an employer under clause (1) of this subdivision;” *285 Section 268.04, subd. 10 (4), has heretofore been in | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.