Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gleason v. Geary, 8 N.W.2d 808.

54 citing documents.

Kelly ex rel. Washburn v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2017
Kelly ex rel. Washburn v. Kraemer Construction, Inc. 896 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2017
put the [employees] into a common pool,” Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499 , (emphasis added).
James M. Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission, and third party v. Hydrocon, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James M. Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission, and third party v. Hydrocon, Inc., Third Party Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A common enterprise exists between the employer and the third party where “the masters have joined forces and in effect have put the servants into a common pool.” Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 511
Chad Schirmers v. County of Anoka Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Chad Schirmers v. County of Anoka Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A common enterprise exists when “the masters have joined forces and in effect have put the servants into a common pool.” Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 511
Douglas Speltz v. Interplastic Corporation, and third party v. Egan Company, Respondent./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Douglas Speltz v. Interplastic Corporation, and third party v. Egan Company, Respondent./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 501, 509, 813 (1943) (stating that, even though a common enterprise could have existed when hatchery employees labored with contractor’s employees to break up and remove a floor, it did not exist at time of accident, in which hatchery employee was injured when temporary catwalk constructed by c
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
We determine legislative intent “primarily from the language of the statute itself.” Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 516
Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. 634 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2001
Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. 634 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2001
Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 507 , Minn. Stat. § 176.061 , subd.
In Re Linehan 594 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1999
In Re Linehan 594 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 1999
Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 516 , (Peterson, J., dissenting).
Carstens v. Mayers, Inc. 574 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Carstens v. Mayers, Inc. 574 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
The aim of the election of remedies provision is “to prevent a double recovery by an injured person from both the employer and a third party where ‘the masters-have joined forces and in effect have put the servants into a common pool.’” O’ (quoting Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 511 , ).
O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros. 549 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1996
O'MALLEY v. Ulland Bros. 549 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1996
Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 508
Brandt v. State 428 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Brandt v. State 428 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See, e.g., Chenette v. Trustees of Iowa College, Grinnell, Iowa, 431 F.2d 49 (8th Cir.1970); McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501 , Glear son v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499
Alberts v. United Stockyards Corp. 413 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Alberts v. United Stockyards Corp. 413 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
To constitute similar related purposes, the employers must “have joined forces and in effect have put the servants into a common pool.” Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 511
Schleicher v. Lunda Construction Co. 406 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1987
Schleicher v. Lunda Construction Co. 406 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1987
570, 572 (1938), an elevator repair company was held to be in a common enterprise with the company whose elevator was being repaired, but Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 504-05, 509 , 813 (1943), subsequently held that a company doing repairs was not in a common enterprise with the company for which it was doing the repairs.
Ritter v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 352 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Ritter v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 352 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499 , the Minnesota Supreme Court noted that the purpose of the above statutory language was to deny an injured person the right to recover both workers’ compensation benefits and a common law *113 remedy only when the injured person’s employer and another “master” legally liable for damages “have join
Kasch v. Clearwater County 289 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1980
Kasch v. Clearwater County 289 N.W.2d 148 Minn. 1980
Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499
Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368 Minn. 1960
Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368 Minn. 1960
527 ; Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499 , 8 N.W.
Knopp v. Gutterman 102 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1960
Knopp v. Gutterman 102 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1960
No. 9, 207 Minn. 292 , ; Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156 , 9 N. W. (2d) 421 ; Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499 , 8 N. W. (2d) 808 ; Judd v. Landin, 211 Minn. 465 , 1 N. W. (2d) 861 .
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. 93 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1958
McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. 93 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1958
In considering the arguments of the defendant it is unnecessary to further discuss the history of § 176.061, as that subject is fully discussed in Tevoght v. Poison, 205 Minn. 252 , , and in Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499 , 8 N. W. (2d) 808 .
Dockendorf v. Lakie 86 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1957
Dockendorf v. Lakie 86 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1957
1 See, Dockendorf v. Lakie, 240 Minn. 441 , 61 N. W. (2d) 752 ; Nyquist v. Batcher, 235 Minn. 491 , 51 N. W. (2d) 566 ; Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499 , 8 N. W. (2d) 808 ; Joel v. Peter Dale Garage, 206 Minn. 580 , ; McGuigan v. Allen, 165 Minn. 390 , ; Patterson v. O’Neil, 151 Minn. 15 , ; Kelley v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 142 Minn. 44 , ; Hirsch v. Bayne, 112 Minn. 68 , ; Pierce v. Wagner, 2
Dockendorf v. Lakie 61 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1953
Dockendorf v. Lakie 61 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1953
2, which in Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 507 , 8 N. W. (2d) 808, 812 , was stated to be that of reimbursing the employer to the extent of his contribution under the act, the workman taking the excess 12 It is not amiss to call the attention of trial courts to the importance, in actions brought under § 176.06, subd.
Monson v. Arcand 58 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1953
Monson v. Arcand 58 N.W.2d 753 Minn. 1953
5 Voiding v. Harnish, 236 Minn. 71 , 51 N. W. (2d) 658 ; Swanson v. J. L. Shiely Co. 234 Minn. 548 , 48 N. W. (2d) 848 ; Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499 , 8 N. W. (2d) 808 ; see, Manteuffel v. Theo.
Urbanski v. Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. 57 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1953
Urbanski v. Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. 57 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1953
4 See, also, Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 503 , 8 N. W. (2d) 808, 810 .
Crawford v. Woodrich Construction Co. Inc. 57 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1953
Crawford v. Woodrich Construction Co. Inc. 57 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1953
The question is simplified by our decision in Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499 , 8 N. W. (2d) 808 , wherein, as a matter of statutory construction, we construed the terms “common enterprise” and the “accomplishment of the same or related purposes” of the employers (§ 176.06, subd.
Manteuffel v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co. 56 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1952
Manteuffel v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co. 56 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1952
Our cases construing this statutory provision are adequately reviewed in Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499 , 8 N. W. (2d) 808 ; Swanson v. J. L. Shiely Co. 234 Minn. 548 , 48 N. W. (2d) 848 ; and Volding v. Harnish, 236 Minn. 71 , 51 N. W. (2d) 658 .
Volding v. Harnish 51 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1952
Volding v. Harnish 51 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1952
In Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 500 , 8 N. W. (2d) 808, 809 , the terms “common enterprise” or “related purposes” as used in § 176.06, subd.
Swanson v. J. L. Shiely Co. 48 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1951
Swanson v. J. L. Shiely Co. 48 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1951
Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499, 506 , 8 N. W. (2d) 808, 812 ; Tevoght v. Poison, 205 Minn. 252 , .