Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Larson v. Le Mere, 18 N.W.2d 696.

49 citing documents.

Jacqueline Blakey, Jerry Blakey v. Javonda Jones, Gina Alexander, ... Minn. 2023
Jacqueline Blakey, Jerry Blakey v. Javonda Jones, Gina Alexander, ... Minn. 2023
No. 116 & No. 136, (“Any party who would be prejudiced by a reversal or modification of an order, award, or judgment is an adverse party on whom a writ of certiorari or notice of appeal must be served.”).
Tina Goede, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
7(a) (requiring service of petition for writ of certiorari on DEED and “any other party”); (“Any party who would be prejudiced by a reversal or modification of an order, award, or judgment is an adverse party on whom a writ of certiorari or notice of appeal must be served.”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of J. R. R., Parent. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
An “adverse party” is “ [a]ny party who would be prejudiced by a reversal or modification of an order, award, or judgment.” ( same), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Marriage of Banal-Shepherd v. Shepherd 829 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Banal-Shepherd v. Shepherd 829 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25, 27-28
Marriage of Cepek v. Cepek 684 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Cepek v. Cepek 684 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Larson v. LeMere, 220 Minn. 25, 27-28
In Re the Welfare of J.B. 623 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Re the Welfare of J.B. 623 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
An “adverse party” is “[a]ny party who would be prejudiced by a reversal or modification of an order, award, or judgment * * *.” Larson v. LeMere, 220 Minn. 25 , 27 28
City of Victoria v. County of Carver 567 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
City of Victoria v. County of Carver 567 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
An “adverse party” is “[a]ny party who would be prejudiced by a reversal or modification of an order, award, or judgment[.]” Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25, 27-28 , (citations omitted); see Thayer v. Duffy, 240 Minn. 234 , 254r-55, (holding that appealing party must give notice of appeal to “every party whose interest in the subject of the appeal is in direct conflict with an affirmance, reversal, or modification of the j
In Re the Recommendation for Discharge of Brown 434 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Recommendation for Discharge of Brown 434 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Larson v. LeMere, 220 Minn. 25 , Haimila v. Opsahl Co., 208 Minn. 605 , 293 N.W.
Hibbing Educational Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Board 342 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hibbing Educational Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Board 342 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See, Larson v. LeMere, 220 Minn. 25
Scott v. Southview Chevrolet Co. 267 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 1978
Followed Scott v. Southview Chevrolet Co. 267 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 1978
176.481 provides in part: “On review upon certiorari under this chapter, the supreme court has original jurisdiction.” Lest we be misunderstood, however, we reaffirm our interpretation of this statutory language as set forth in Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25, 28 , : “ * * * The word original in the above statute did not and could not enlarge the jurisdiction of this court beyond its appellate jurisdiction (and such original jurisdiction in remedial cases as prescribed by law) conferred and limi
Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 254 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1977
Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 254 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1977
See Larson v. LeMere, 220 Minn. 25
Dudovitz v. Shoppers City, Inc. 164 N.W.2d 873 Minn. 1969
Hagberg v. Colonial & Pacific Frigidways, Inc. 157 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1968
Hagberg v. Colonial & Pacific Frigidways, Inc. 157 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1968
Hansen v. Adent, 238 Minn. 540 , 57 N. W. (2d) 681 ; Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696 .
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
of payment, furnishing of materials or tools, control of the premises where the work is to be done, and the right of the employer to discharge the employe-contractor.” 1 *92 The case at bar narrows down to the question of the right of the trustees to control the work by virtue of their authority to terminate the services of Jeffrey and Keith, and is in line with the holding in Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696 , 13 W. C. D. 366, where this court affirmed the commission’s findin
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
4 Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co. 258 Minn. 254, 262 , 103 N. W. (2d) 641, 646 ; Mount v. City of Redwood Falls, 260 Minn. 16, 19 , 108 N. W. (2d) 443, 446 ; Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25, 32 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696, 700 ; Angell v. White Eagle Oil & Ref.
Mount v. City of Redwood Falls 108 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1961
Mount v. City of Redwood Falls 108 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1961
No. 102, 251 Minn. 297 , 87 N. W. (2d) 646 ; Christopherson v. Security State Bank, 256 Minn. 191 , 97 N. W. (2d) 649 ; Sayre v. Johnson, 218 Minn. 586 , 17 N. W. (2d) 76 ; Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696 ; Judd v. Sanatorium Comm.
Christopherson v. Security State Bank of Oklee 97 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1959
Christopherson v. Security State Bank of Oklee 97 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1959
Co. 186 Minn. 534 , ; Fuller v. Northern States Power Co. 189 Minn. 134 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Rick v. Noble, 196 Minn. 185 , ; Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696 ; contra, Lemkuhl v. Clark, 209 Minn. 276 , .
Stephen v. Miles Construction Co. 60 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1953
Stephen v. Miles Construction Co. 60 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1953
Schmoll v. J. W. Craig Co. 228 Minn. 429 , 37 N. W. (2d) 539 ; Eischen v. Fairmont Canning Co. 225 Minn. 295 , 30 N. W. (2d) 586 ; Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696 ; Burke v. B. F. Nelson Mfg.
Hansen v. Adent 57 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1953
Hansen v. Adent 57 N.W.2d 681 Minn. 1953
In Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25, 32 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696, 700 , we said: “The real test, however, ‘as to whether a person is an independent contractor or an employe is whether the asserted employer, under his arrangement with the other party, has or has not any authoritative control of the latter with respect to the manner and means in which and by w
Fahey v. Terp 51 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1952
Fahey v. Terp 51 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1952
2 Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25, 32 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696, 700 .
Henderson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 43 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1950
Henderson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 43 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1950
Co. 74 Minn. 8 , ; Rendahl v. Hall, 160 Minn. 502 , , ; Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696 ; Rushford State Bank v. Benston, 194 Minn. 414 , .
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
106 ; Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25 , .
Pederson v. Pederson 39 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 1949
e 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 .
Liakos v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis 29 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1947
Liakos v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis 29 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1947
Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25, 29 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696, 699 , and cases cited.
Willner v. Wallinder Sash & Door Co. 28 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1947
Willner v. Wallinder Sash & Door Co. 28 N.W.2d 682 Minn. 1947
The *369 test to be applied was recently stated in Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25, 32 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696, 700 , in this form: “The real test, however, ‘as to whether a person is an independent contractor or an employe is whether the asserted employer, under his arrangement with the other party, has or has not any authoritative control of the latter with respect to the manner and means in which and
Skreen v. Rauk 27 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1947
Skreen v. Rauk 27 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1947
Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696 .