Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Koenigs v. Travis, 75 N.W.2d 478.

38 citing documents.

Rebecca A. Niebuhr v. Jacob Sieberg, Timothy Sieberg Minn. 2026
(stating that Miller did not “affect the common[]law marital immunity as it has been applied in this state” but rather “involve[d] the question of agency”).
Frederick S. Fish, Minn. 2019
Indeed, common liability “is the very essence of an action for ‘contribution’.”
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
Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466, 469
Eustis v. David Agency, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Eustis v. David Agency, Inc. 417 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466, 469 , (substantive basis for third-party claim is prerequisite to use of impleader rule).
Browne v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 377 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Browne v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 377 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466, 469
Olson v. Burt 239 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1976
Olson v. Burt 239 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1976
Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466 , Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368
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
Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466 , American Auto.
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
In Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466, 469 , we declared: “ * * * The purpose of [Rule 14.01] is to permit the defendant to assert an independent claim against such third party which he otherwise would assert in another action, thus preventing a multiplicity of suits.
Milbank Mutual Insurance v. Village of Rose Creek 225 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1974
Milbank Mutual Insurance v. Village of Rose Creek 225 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1974
See, also, Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466 , American Auto.
Barile v. Anderson 203 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1972
Barile v. Anderson 203 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 1972
Finding the law of Beaudette v. Frana, supra, inapplicable because of its prospective application, the trial court held that the rule of Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466 , disallowing such suits, applied.
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
3 E. g., Ankeny v. Moffett, supra; Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466 , 75 N. W. (2d) 478 .
Reese v. Henke 174 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1970
Reese v. Henke 174 N.W.2d 690 Minn. 1970
Upon remand, appellants, relying upon Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466 , 75 N. W. (2d) 478 , contended that the marriage of plaintiff to appellant Roger Henke prior to the payment of the judgment immunized appellant Roger Henke from liability for any contribution.
Hovanetz v. Anderson 148 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1967
Hovanetz v. Anderson 148 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1967
Co. v. Molling, 239 Minn. 74 , 57 N. W. (2d) 847 ; Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466 , 75 N. W. (2d) 478 .
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Village of Hewitt 143 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1966
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Village of Hewitt 143 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1966
In the case of Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466, 472 , 75 N. W. (2d) 478, 483 , we again indicate that it is not essential that common liability arise out of the same tortious conduct.
White v. Johnson 137 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1965
White v. Johnson 137 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1965
In Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466 , 75 N. W. (2d) 478 , contribution was denied where the party against whom contribution was sought had married the injured plaintiff between the time her cause of action arose and the time defendant asserted his right to contribution.
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.
Poepping v. Lindemann 127 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1964
Poepping v. Lindemann 127 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 1964
8 This case is also authority for the proposition that a valid distinction is to be made between proceedings against an individual on the one hand and proceedings against his estate on the other *36 when we consider that in Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466 , 75 N. W. (2d) 478 , it was held that the doctrine of marital immunity precluded third-party proceedings for contribution in a situation identical except for the fact that the third-party defendant, husband of the plaintiff, was living at the
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 .
Shumway v. Nelson 107 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1961
Shumway v. Nelson 107 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1961
6 Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466 , 75 N. W. (2d) 478 ; American Auto.
Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368 Minn. 1960
Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368 Minn. 1960
(2d) 689 ; Koenigs v. Travis, 246 Minn. 466 , 75 N.W.