scope of employment test (Minnesota) · Go Syfert
← Minnesota issues

scope of employment test in Minnesota

6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2016 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Fahrendorff Ex Rel. Fahrendorff v. North Homes, Inc.green
minn · 1999 · cited in 2 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2001–2008
2 sentences

2008See Fahrendorff, 597 N.W.2d at 910 (noting that re-spondeat superior liability is not based on “any fault of the employer,” but instead arises “from a public policy determination that liability for acts committed within the scope of employment should be allocated to the employer as a cost of engaging in that business”).

2008See Fahrendorff, 597 N.W.2d at 910 (noting that respondeat superior liability is not based on "any fault of the employer," but instead arises "from a public policy determination that liability for acts committed within the scope of employment should be allocated to the employer as a cost of engaging in that business").

12
Richard Gallose v. Long Island Railroad Companygreen
ca2 · 1989 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See id. at 84 (describing the key scope-of-employment inquiry as whether an employee was attempting to further the employer’s interests).

2016“Normally, whether an employee is acting within the scope of employment is a question to be resolved by the jury from all the surrounding circumstances.” Id. (quotation omitted).

11
Mensing v. Rochester Cheese Express, Inc.green
minnctapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
1 sentence

2004This court has determined that there is “no hard and fast rule to resolve the scope of employment inquiry; rather, each case must be decided on its own individual facts.” Mensing v. Rochester Cheese Express, Inc., 423 N.W.2d 92, 94 (Minn.App.1988).

11
Kasner v. Gagegreen
minn · 1968 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001In analyzing whether Hagen acted within the scope of employment when he violated the UTSA, the district court and court of appeals applied the scope-of-employment test as enunciated in Kasner v. Gage, 281 Minn. 149, 152 , 161 N.W.2d 40, 42 (1968).

2001In analyzing whether Hagen acted within the scope of employment when he violated the UTSA, the district court and court of appeals applied the scope-of-employment test as enunciated in Kasner v. Gage, 281 Minn. 149, 152 , 161 N.W.2d 40, 42 (1968).

11
Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzkegreen
minn · 1979 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
1 sentence

1988Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke, 277 N.W.2d 11, 15 (Minn.1979).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Harrison v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. green
ilnd · 1989
2 sentences

1992"In cases involving intentional wrongdoing, the scope of employment doctrine acquires something of an abstract quality, for such wrongdoing is never really within the scope of an employee's employment: if it were, then the employer's liability would be direct, not vicarious." Harrison v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 715 F.Supp. at 1430 ; see Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 212 & Comment a; see generally Carol M.

1992“In cases involving intentional wrongdoing, the scope of employment doctrine acquires something of an abstract quality, for such wrongdoing is never really within the scope of an employee’s employment: if it were, then the employer’s liability would be direct, not vicarious.” Harrison v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 715 F.Supp. at 1430 ; see Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 212 & Comment a; see generally Carol M.

11992–1992

Where else courts name it

LA 39 (1993–2022) TX 22 (1990–2025) MI 11 (1974–1985) CA 9 (1993–2022) NJ 8 (1982–2014) MN 6 (1988–2016) IL 6 (1992–2016) IN 5 (1999–2020) SD 4 (1991–2013) WI 4 (1975–1990) NM 4 (1998–2024) MA 4 (1996–2025) PA 4 (1986–2023) AZ 2 (1996–2011) MS 2 (1998–2001) DE 2 (2018–2019) MD 2 (2012–2020) UT 2 (2000–2018) TN 2 (1981–2011) OH 2 (2005–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check