DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gustafson v. Johnson, 51 N.W.2d 108.

60 citing documents.

  • In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway, 235 Minn. 304 , the running of a statute of limitations against a co-tort-feasor, see Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 364 , failure to provide statutory notice to a municipal co-tortfeasor, see White v. Johnson, 272 Minn. 363, 372 , overruled on other grounds [;] Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., -68 (1977); and failure to provide statutory notice to a drams
  • Zaffke v. Wallestad 642 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Zaffke v. Wallestad 642 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 371-72 , -16 (1952).
  • Herubin v. Finn 603 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Herubin v. Finn 603 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    § 548.19 is in accord with the supreme court’s decision in Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358
  • Marriage of LaFreniere-Nietz v. Nietz 547 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • Marriage of LaFreniere-Nietz v. Nietz 547 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    Appellant contends that the court’s equitable powers do not extend to this case, because “[gjarnishment is essentially a statutory remedy.” Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 373
  • Blomgren v. Marshall Management Services, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Blomgren v. Marshall Management Services, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    4 Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 23-4 , Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 364 , (stating a joint “tortfeasor who has been *507 sued ‘has the right to implead the unjoined tortfeasor in plaintiffs action for the purpose of proving their common liability even after the statute of limitations on plaintif
  • Acrometal Companies, Inc. v. First American Bank of Brainerd 475 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Acrometal Companies, Inc. v. First American Bank of Brainerd 475 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    See Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 374-75
  • Moose Club v. LaBounty 442 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Moose Club v. LaBounty 442 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad Co., 235 Minn. 304, 308 , (covenant not to sue); Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 364 , (failure to bring a claim within the statute of limitations); (failure to provide notice in dram shop action).
  • Shore v. Minneapolis Auto Auction, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Shore v. Minneapolis Auto Auction, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See also Samuelson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co., 287 Minn. 264, 268 , (judgment of liability is not a condition precedent to recovery of contribution or indemnity); Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 364 , (a judgment es *864 tablishing liability is not a necessary prerequisite to an action for contribution between joint tortfeasors); Duluth Mesabe & Northern Railroad Co. v. McCarthy, 183 Minn. 414, 417 , 236 N.W.
  • Widgren v. Massie 352 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Widgren v. Massie 352 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    While it is true that garnishment is essentially a statutory remedy and in the absence of statute would not exist, Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 373 , it is equally true that “a garnishment statute is remedial and should be liberally construed ....
  • Calder v. City of Crystal 318 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1982
  • Calder v. City of Crystal 318 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1982
    Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358
  • Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. Blake 311 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1981
  • Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. Blake 311 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1981
    Appellants rely on several Minnesota cases which have recognized the principle that neither an injured party’s failure to sue a tortfeasor within the statute of limitations, e.g., Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358 , nor an injured party’s failure to provide statutory notice of a claim against a tortfeasor, White v. Johnson, 272 Minn. 363 , overruled in part, precludes contribution against that tortfe
  • Jones v. Fisher 309 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1981
  • Jones v. Fisher 309 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1981
    Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway, 235 Minn. 304 , the running of a statute of limitations against a co-tortfeasor, see Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 364 , failure to provide statutory notice to a municipal co-tort-feasor, see White v. Johnson, 272 Minn. 363, 372 , overruled on other grounds; Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., -68 (1977); and failure to provide statutory notice to a dramsho
  • Hammerschmidt v. Moore 274 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1978
  • Hammerschmidt v. Moore 274 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1978
    Similarly, neither an injured party’s failure to bring an action against a tortfeasor within the statute of limitations (Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 364 , [1952]) nor *82 an injured party’s failure to provide statutory notice of a claim against a municipality (White v. Johnson, supra) relieves a tortfeasor of his liability to a joint tort-feasor for contribution.
  • Spitzack v. Schumacher 241 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1976
  • Spitzack v. Schumacher 241 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1976
    Similarly, neither an injured party’s failure to bring an action against a tortfeasor within the statute of limitations (Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 364 , [1952]) nor an injured party’s failure to provide statutory notice of a claim against a municipality (White v. Johnson, supra) relieves a tortfeasor of his liability to a joint tortfeasor for contribution.
  • Lametti v. Peter Lametti Construction Co. 232 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1975
  • Lametti v. Peter Lametti Construction Co. 232 N.W.2d 435 Minn. 1975
    Thus, the requirement that the party from whom contribution is sought must have secured a release by the payment of the party seeking contribution, referred to in Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358 , and Town *77 ship of Canosia v. Township of Grand Lake, 80 Minn. 357 , has been met.
  • Grothe Ex Rel. Grothe v. Shaffer 232 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1975
  • Grothe Ex Rel. Grothe v. Shaffer 232 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 1975
    Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358
  • Holman v. General Ins. Co. of America 231 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1975
  • Holman v. General Ins. Co. of America 231 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1975
    Garnishment shall be permitted before judgment in the following instances only: “(2) When the garnishee and the debtor are parties to a contract of suretyship, guarantee, or insurance, because of which the garnishee may be held to respond to any person for the claim asserted against the debtor in the main action.” 7 But cf. Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 374 , : “It is always doubtful what amount and whether there may be any recovery in such [unliquidated tort claim] actions.” Gustafson mu
  • Christy v. Menasha Corporation 211 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1973
  • Christy v. Menasha Corporation 211 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 1973
    gal liability exists does not give rise to a right to indemnity under an agreement to indemnify against liability in the sense of accrued liability, Where, however, the contract is so expressed as to protect the obligee against any claim, suit, or demand, even the institution of a suit against the obligee has been held to entitle him to an action against his guarantor.” 3 In Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 372 , this court said, “* * * We therefore hold that, subject to the exercise of the
  • Northwestern National Bank v. Delta Studios, Inc. 184 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1971
  • Northwestern National Bank v. Delta Studios, Inc. 184 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1971
    Our decisions in Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358 , 51 *206 N. W. (2d) 108, and Knudson v. Anderson, 199 Minn. 479 , , cited by plaintiff bank, are not in conflict with our decision in this case.
  • Samuelson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 178 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1970
  • Samuelson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 178 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1970
    5 See, also, Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358 , 51 N. W. (2d) 108 ; Employers Mutual Cas.
  • White v. Johnson 137 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1965
  • White v. Johnson 137 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1965
    See, also, Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 364 , 51 N. W. (2d) 108, 112 .
  • NORTHWESTERN NAT. BANK, ETC. v. Hilton & Associates 136 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1965
  • NORTHWESTERN NAT. BANK, ETC. v. Hilton & Associates 136 N.W.2d 646 Minn. 1965
    Plaintiff’s reliance on Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358 , 51 N. W. (2d) 108 , is misplaced because we there only held that an action for contribution is one for the recovery of money, 7 and therefore a main action in which garnishment could be served.
  • County of Dodge v. Martin 136 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1965
  • County of Dodge v. Martin 136 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 1965
    Co. 235 Minn. 304 , 50 N. W. (2d) 689 ; Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358 , 51 N. W. (2d) 108 ; Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368 , 104 N. W. (2d) 843 ; Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466 , 75 N. W. (2d) 478 ; 18 Am.
  • Radmacher v. Cardinal 117 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1962
  • Radmacher v. Cardinal 117 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1962
    2 Rules 13.07 and 14.01, Rules of Civil Procedure; Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 372 , 51 N. W. (2d) 108, 116 ; Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466, 468 , 75 N. W. (2d) 478, 481 ; Coble v. Lacey, 257 Minn. 352, 358 , 101 N. W. (2d) 594, 599 .
  • Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368 Minn. 1960
  • Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368 Minn. 1960
    548.19, 548.20, 548.21; Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 371 , 51 N.W.