Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 72 N.W.2d 364.

36 citing documents.

Seven Acquisition LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
William Salgat, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249, 253-54
Peterka v. Dennis 744 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Peterka v. Dennis 744 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Appellant, relying on Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249 , argues that the function Dennis performed was not of a judicial nature.
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Blatz v. Allina Health System 622 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Co., (insurance agents); Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249, 253 , (accountants); Harris v. Wood, 214 Minn. 492, 498 , -22 (1943) (dentists); Getchell v. Hill, 21 Minn. 464, 464 (1875) (medical doctors).
Dziubak v. Mott 486 N.W.2d 837 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Dziubak v. Mott 486 N.W.2d 837 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(citing Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249, 254 , ), aff'd
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc. 452 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1990
Aufderhar v. Data Dispatch, Inc. 452 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1990
2 Our rationale for abandonment of the “mutuality” rule is set forth in Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249
L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp. 446 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1989
L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp. 446 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1989
See Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249, 254
Tindell v. Rogosheske 428 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1988
Tindell v. Rogosheske 428 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1988
1213 , 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967), and while other quasi-judicial officers have been protected by an extension of judicial immunity, see Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249, 254 , we heretofore have not directly addressed the propriety of an extension of immunity to a guardian ad litem.
Tindell v. Rogosheske 421 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Tindell v. Rogosheske 421 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249, 254
Nguyen v. Control Data Corp. 401 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nguyen v. Control Data Corp. 401 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See, e.g., City of Eveleth v. Ruble, 302 Minn. 249 , Gammel v. Ernst and Ernst, 245 Minn. 249
Vernon J. Rockler & Co. v. Glickman, Isenberg, Lurie & Co. 273 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1978
Vernon J. Rockler & Co. v. Glickman, Isenberg, Lurie & Co. 273 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1978
Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249, 253
Peterson v. Knutson 233 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1975
Peterson v. Knutson 233 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 1975
These cases support the result we reach: Antonson v. Ekvall, 295 Minn. 558 , McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55 , Howe v. Nelson, 271 Minn. 296 , Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249 , Melady-Briggs Cattle Corp. v. Drovers State Bank, 213 Minn. 304
City of Eveleth v. Ruble 225 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1974
City of Eveleth v. Ruble 225 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1974
Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249
Kostohryz v. McGuire 212 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1973
Kostohryz v. McGuire 212 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1973
The duty and liability of an architect, whether sounding in tort or arising out of a breach of a contract, is measured as stated in Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249, 254
Lustik v. Rankila 131 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1964
Lustik v. Rankila 131 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1964
In Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249 , 72 N. W. (2d) 364 , 54 A. L. R. (2d) 316, we squarely held that es-toppel by prior verdict was available in favor not only of a party who appeared in a different capacity but also of one who was a complete stranger to the prior litigation.
Hill v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 109 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1961
Hill v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. 109 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1961
In Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249 , 72 N. W. (2d) 364 , 54 A. L. R. (2d) 316, we held that a plaintiff who has selected his forum and presented his proof on an issue is bound by the judgment rendered therein on such issue in a subsequent action even though against another party.
Gollner v. Cram 102 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1960
Gollner v. Cram 102 N.W.2d 521 Minn. 1960
12 Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249 , 72 N. W. (2d) 364 , 54 A. L. R. (2d) 316; Miller v. Simons, 239 Minn. 523 , 59 N. W. (2d) 837 ; Wilson v. Erickson, 152 Minn. 364 , .
Adamson v. Dougherty 81 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1957
Adamson v. Dougherty 81 N.W.2d 110 Minn. 1957
This factor would distinguish the situation here from those presented in such cases as Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst, 245 Minn. 249 , 72 N. W. (2d) 864 ; Wilson v. Erickson, 152 Minn. 364 , ; Coca-Cola Co. v. Pepsi-Cola Co. 36 Del.