Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wass v. Bracker Construction Co., 240 N.W. 464.

27 citing documents.

Lindbery v. J. A. Danens & Son, Inc. 123 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1963
Lindbery v. J. A. Danens & Son, Inc. 123 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1963
5 Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70, 72 , .
Aleckson v. Kennedy Motor Sales Co. 55 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1952
Aleckson v. Kennedy Motor Sales Co. 55 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1952
3 See, Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70 , .
Larson v. Le Mere 18 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1945
Larson v. Le Mere 18 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1945
6 Angell v. White Eagle O. & R. Co. 169 Minn. 183 , ; Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70 , ; Lemkuhl v. Clark, supra.
Schneider v. Salvation Army 14 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1944
Schneider v. Salvation Army 14 N.W.2d 467 Minn. 1944
sued by respondent, and the measure of control exercised over him by relator, keeping in mind that we are dealing with a statute which is highly remedial and humanitarian in purpose and which accordingly must be given “a broad, liberal construction in the interests of workmen.” Tillquist v. State Dept. of Labor and Industry, 216 Minn. 202, 206 , 12 N. W. (2d) 512, 515 ; Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig & Supp, § 10385.
Bolin v. Scheurer 297 N.W. 106 Minn. 1941
Bolin v. Scheurer 297 N.W. 106 Minn. 1941
Krause v. Bodin, 172 Minn. 467 , ; cf. Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70, 76 , .
Curtis v. Hedeen 296 N.W. 495 Minn. 1941
Curtis v. Hedeen 296 N.W. 495 Minn. 1941
For respondent, there is argument that his services as flunkey were menial and so within the rule of Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70 , .
Fisher v. Manzke 294 N.W. 477 Minn. 1940
Fisher v. Manzke 294 N.W. 477 Minn. 1940
We think Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , ; Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70 , ; Carter v. W. J. Dyer & Bro.
Stahl v. Patrick 288 N.W. 854 Minn. 1939
Stahl v. Patrick 288 N.W. 854 Minn. 1939
Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70 , .
Jackson v. Cathcart & Maxfield, Inc. 276 N.W. 22 Minn. 1938
Olson v. Eck's Homemade Sausage Co. 261 N.W. 3 Minn. 1935
Olson v. Eck's Homemade Sausage Co. 261 N.W. 3 Minn. 1935
Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , , and cases therein cited; Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70 , .
Cleland v. Anchor Laundry Co. 252 N.W. 453 Minn. 1934
Cleland v. Anchor Laundry Co. 252 N.W. 453 Minn. 1934
The principal cases relied on to establish this proposition are Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70 , , and Carter v. W. J. Dyer & Bro.
Fuller v. Northern States Power Co. 248 N.W. 756 Minn. 1933
Fuller v. Northern States Power Co. 248 N.W. 756 Minn. 1933
There is no way in which this case can be distinguished from that of Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70 , .
Wilson v. Thos. Kileen & Son 246 N.W. 542 Minn. 1933
Wilson v. Thos. Kileen & Son 246 N.W. 542 Minn. 1933
Co. 185 Minn. 70 , ; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.
Carter v. W. J. Dyer & Bro. 243 N.W. 436 Minn. 1932
Carter v. W. J. Dyer & Bro. 243 N.W. 436 Minn. 1932
The late case of Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70 , , sustains recovery in the present case.