Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co., 74 N.W.2d 518.

36 citing documents.

Margaret Campbell, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Livestock Order Buying Co.
Christopher Herkal, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Livestock Order Buying Co.
, A17-2080, A17-2081, A18-0015 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Livestock Order Buying Co. , 246 Minn. 279, 283 , see Minn. Stat. § 302A.161 (2016) (describing corporation’s powers).
Metro Building Companies v. RAM Buildings, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Metro Building Companies v. RAM Buildings, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Livestock Order Buying Co., 246 Minn. 279, 283
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 645 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 645 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Livestock Order Buying Co., 246 Minn. 279, 288-84 , (footnotes omitted) (holding that, in the absence of fraud or other wrongful purpose, a subsidiary must be treated as a legal entity separate and apart from the parent).
Mbong v. New Horizons Nursing 608 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Mbong v. New Horizons Nursing 608 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co., 246 Minn. 279, 288
Ruzic v. Commissioner of Public Safety 455 N.W.2d 89 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Tax Rate for the Calendar Year 1985 Assigned to the Account of Benjamin's, Edina, Inc. v. Department of … 396 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Tax Rate for the Calendar Year 1985 Assigned to the Account of Benjamin's, Edina, Inc. v. Department of … 396 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The court subsequently reaffirmed this reasoning in Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co., 246 Minn. 279 , and noted: Ordinarily two or more corporations are considered separate and distinct entities even though the same individuals are the incorporators of, or own stock in, the several corporations, and even though such corporations may have the same persons as officers.
Kuether v. Personnel Pool of Minnesota 394 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kuether v. Personnel Pool of Minnesota 394 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
While the Commissioner’s representative is vested with wide discretion to determine whether work is “suitable,” Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co., 246 Minn. 279, 288 , the legislature has directed the Commissioner to consider “the degree of risk involved to [the employee’s] health, safety, and morals, his physical fitness and prior training, his experience, his length of unemployment and prospects of securing local work in his customary occupation
Mastley v. Commissioner of Economic Security 347 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Mastley v. Commissioner of Economic Security 347 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Company, 246 Minn. 279, 288
Preiss v. Commissioner of Economic Security 347 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Preiss v. Commissioner of Economic Security 347 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Company, 246 Minn. 279, 288
Christensen v. Fiberite Corp. 269 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1978
Christensen v. Fiberite Corp. 269 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1978
Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co., 246 Minn. 279 , — employees refused to accept employment with a parent corporation; Fannon v. Federal Cartridge Corp., 219 Minn. 306 , , 158 A.L.R.
Milwaukee Motor Transportation Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation 193 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1971
Milwaukee Motor Transportation Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation 193 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1971
518 , 4 L. ed. 629 (1819); Corcoran v. P. G. Corcoran Co. Inc. 245 Minn. 258 , Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 246 Minn. 279 , Gen *72 eral Underwriters, Inc. v. Kline, 233 Minn. 345 , Matthews v. Minnesota Tribune Co. 215 Minn. 369 , , 147 A. L. R. 147 (1943).
Lewis v. Minneapolis Moline, Inc. 181 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1970
Lewis v. Minneapolis Moline, Inc. 181 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1970
See, Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 246 Minn. 279 , 74 N. W. (2d) 518 ; Hessler v. American Television & Radio Co. 258 Minn. 541 , 104 N. W. (2d) 876 .
Kantor v. Honeywell, Inc. 175 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1970
Kantor v. Honeywell, Inc. 175 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1970
Hessler v. American Television & Radio Co. 258 Minn. 541 , 104 N. W. (2d) 876 ; Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 246 Minn. 279 , 74 N. W. (2d) 518 .
Yackel v. St. Paul School of Hairdressing, Inc. 133 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1965
Yackel v. St. Paul School of Hairdressing, Inc. 133 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1965
Had the claimant’s transfer of *207 employment from.one corporation to the other resulted in her being offered different work unsuitable to her skills and justifying a refusal to accept the new job, as in Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 246 Minn. 279 , 74 N. W. (2d) 518 , the legal effect of a corporate merger would have significant application.
Adelsman v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 125 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1963
Adelsman v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 125 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1963
2 Bucko v. J. F. Quest Foundry Co. 229 Minn. 131 , 38 N. W. (2d) 223 ; Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 246 Minn. 279 , 74 N. W. (2d) 518 ; Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp. 254 Minn. 93 , 93 N. W. (2d) 815 .
Easthagen v. Naugle-Leck, Inc. 109 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 1961
Easthagen v. Naugle-Leck, Inc. 109 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 1961
omoted by providing, under the police powers of the state for the compulsory setting aside of unemployment reserves to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own.” With this basic concept in mind, this court has held that the purpose of the act is to assist those who are unfortunate enough to be involuntarily unemployed, Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 246 Minn. 279 , 74 N. W. (2d) 518 ; that the act’s design is to relieve hardship caused by unemploym
Olson v. Starkey 107 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1961
Olson v. Starkey 107 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1961
There is no requirement that he must be engaged in a search for work for any given number of hours each day or week or that he must contact a certain number of employers to prove that he is engaged in a search for work.” Relator relies on Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 246 Minn. 279 , 74 N. W. (2d) 518 , in support of his contentions.
Hessler v. American Television & Radio Co. 104 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1960
Hessler v. American Television & Radio Co. 104 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1960
The directives are laid down in Berthiaume v. Christgau, 218 Minn. 65 , 15 N. W. (2d) 115 , and Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co. 246 Minn. 279 , 74 N. W. (2d) 518 , as to when and under what circumstances the department may make a determination as to what is suitable work under the statute.