DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bolin v. Scheurer, 297 N.W. 106.

31 citing documents.

  • Streiff v. Lungren 393 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Streiff v. Lungren 393 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Streiff contends that this case is governed by Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , 297 N.W.
  • Wangen v. City of Fountain 255 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1977
  • Toughill v. Melcher 179 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1970
  • Toughill v. Melcher 179 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1970
    The court said ( 209 Minn. 394 , ) : “* * * One who is hired and paid by an employe to help in performing the employer’s work with the latter’s consent and subject to his control as to the details of the work is an employe of the employer.” In Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , , the claimant was hired by an excavating contractor and paid on a cubic-yard basis.
  • Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church 149 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
  • Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church 149 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
    sions in this state, one who works on an hourly basis under an arrangement terminable at will may be an employee even though he works without supervision (Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , ), furnishes his own equipment (Bergstrom v. Brehmer, 214 Minn. 326 , 8 N. W. [2d] 328), performs work of the kind ordinarily performed by independent contractors (Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , ), or hires a helper (Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. supra).
  • 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
    8 Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15, 18 , .
  • Elwell v. Fake 119 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1962
  • Elwell v. Fake 119 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1962
    Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , ; Byhardt v. Ballord, 209 Minn. 391 , .
  • Pettis v. Harken, Inc. 116 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1962
  • Pettis v. Harken, Inc. 116 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1962
    Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , ; Korthuis v. Soderling & Sons, 218 Minn. 342 , 16 N. W. (2d) 285 .
  • Moorhead v. Grassle 93 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1958
  • Moorhead v. Grassle 93 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1958
    Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , .
  • Koktavy v. City of New Prague 75 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1956
  • Koktavy v. City of New Prague 75 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1956
    5 Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , ; Lemkuhl v. Clark, 209 Minn. 276 , ; Wicklund v. North Star Timber Co. 205 Minn. 595 , ; Graf v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc. 234 Minn. 485 , 49 N. W. (2d) 797 ; Hansen v. Adent, 238 Minn. 540 , 57 N. W. (2d) 681 ; Castner v. *554 Christgau, 222 Minn. 61 , 24 N. W. (2d) 228
  • Pederson v. Pederson 39 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1949
  • Pederson v. Pederson 39 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1949
  • Pederson v. Pederson 39 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1949
    504 ; Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , 297 N.W.
  • Pederson v. Pederson 39 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1949
    & R. Co. 169 Minn. 183 , ; Moore v. Kileen & Gillis, 171 Minn. 15 , ; Krause v. Bodin, 172 Minn. 467 , ; Schonberg v. Zinsmaster Baking Co. 173 Minn. 414 , ; Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , ; Lemkuhl v. Clark, 209 Minn. 276 , ; Byhardt v. Ballord, 209 Minn. 391 , ; Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , ; Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696 .
  • Larson v. Le Mere 18 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1945
  • Larson v. Le Mere 18 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1945
    Byhardt v. Ballord, 209 Minn. 391 , ; Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , .
  • Korthuis v. Soderling & Sons 16 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1944
  • Korthuis v. Soderling & Sons 16 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1944
    The difficult question to determine is whether, from the evidence, relator had the right of control necessary to establish the employment relationship, i. e., “the right of the employer to control the means and manner of performance.” Bolin v. Soheurer, 210 Minn. 15, 17 , ; Wicklund v. North Star Timber Co. 205 Minn. 595 , , supra.
  • Bergstrom v. Brehmer 8 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1943
  • Bergstrom v. Brehmer 8 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1943
    Co. 186 Minn. 534 , 243 N. W. *331 706; Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , ; Rick v. Noble, 196 Minn. 185 , ; Byhardt v. Ballord, 209 Minn. 391 , ; Gahr v. Strout, 179 Minn. 395 , .
  • Anfinson v. A. O. U. W. Insurance Co. 3 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1942
  • Anfinson v. A. O. U. W. Insurance Co. 3 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1942
    Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15, 17 , ; Wicklund v. North Star Timber Co. 205 Minn. 595 , .
  • Washel v. Tankar Gas, Inc. 2 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1941
  • Washel v. Tankar Gas, Inc. 2 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1941
    So far as Tankar Gas, Inc. is held to be the employer of Washel, we also cite Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , ; Byhardt v. Ballord, 209 Minn. 391 , ; Rice v. Keystone View Co. 210 Minn. 227 , .