Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368.

138 citing documents.

Federated Mut. Ins. v. Amer. Family Mut. Ins. 350 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 350 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Federated Mut. Ins. v. Amer. Family Mut. Ins. 350 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368 , modified on other grounds, Tolbert v. Gerber Indus., Inc.
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 350 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368 , modified on other grounds, Tolbert v. Gerber Indus., Inc.
National Indemnity Co. v. Mutual Service Casualty Co. 311 N.W.2d 856 Minn. 1981
National Indemnity Co. v. Mutual Service Casualty Co. 311 N.W.2d 856 Minn. 1981
Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368
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
“[Ijndemnity is appropriate where one party has a primary or greater liability or duty which justly requires him to bear the whole of the burden as between the parties.” Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368, 371 , overruled in part
Ploog v. Ogilvie 309 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1981
Ploog v. Ogilvie 309 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1981
Indemnity may be awarded “[w]here there is an express contract between the parties containing an explicit undertaking to reimburse for liability of the character involved.” Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368, 373
Polaris Industries v. Plastics, Inc. 299 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1980
Polaris Industries v. Plastics, Inc. 299 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1980
Reconciling the special verdicts applicable to Plastics’ liability the court properly held that Plastics was found negligent only as to “information supplied [to Polaris] concerning the polyethylene gasoline tanks.” In Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc., we abrogated Rule 4 set forth in Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368 , which had granted indemnity where the one seeking indemnity has incurred liability merely because of failure, even though negligent, to discover or
Lemmer v. IDS Properties, Inc. 304 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1980
Lemmer v. IDS Properties, Inc. 304 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1980
IDS sought indemnity primarily under the rule that a “joint tortfeasor may generally recover indemnity * * * [w]here the one seeking indemnity has incurred liability because of a breach of duty owed to him by the one sought to be charged.” Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368, 372-73
Ford v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad 294 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1980
Ford v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad 294 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1980
Tolbert only overruled the fourth rule in Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368 , the fifth rule allows for express contracts and was not overruled.
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. 284 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1979
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. 284 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1979
For his indemnity argument, Olson mistakenly relies upon two of the rules permitting indemnity which we adopted in Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368, 373 , : “(3) Where the one seeking indemnity has incurred liability because of a breach of duty owed to him by the one sought to be charged.
Farmington Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Fischer Sand & Aggregate, Inc. 281 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1979
Farmington Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Fischer Sand & Aggregate, Inc. 281 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1979
Because Fischer does not come within any of the other categories of indemnity 3 outlined in Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368 , the only way Fischer can be indemnified in this case is if the subcontract so provides.
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 258 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1977
Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 258 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1977
In Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368, 372 , we reviewed our decisions concerning indemnity between joint tort-feasors and adopted the following rules: “ * * * A joint tortfeasor may generally recover indemnity only in the following situations: “(1) Where the one seeking indemnity has only a derivative or vicarious liability fo
Hake v. Soo Line Railway Co. 258 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1977
Hake v. Soo Line Railway Co. 258 N.W.2d 576 Minn. 1977
Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368
Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc. 255 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1977
Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc. 255 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1977
In Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 258 Minn. 368, 372 , we reviewed our decisions concerning indemnity between joint tort-feasors 1 and adopted the following rules: “ * * * A joint tortfeasor may generally recover indemnity only in the following situations: “(1) Where the one seeking indemnity has only a derivative or vicarious liability
Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. 252 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1977
Explained Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc. 252 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1977
In Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368 , we explained the nature of the remedy of indemnity.
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. 257 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1977
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. 257 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1977
As this court stated in Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368, 370 , : “The principles governing contribution and indemnity are similar both in origin and in character.
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
Halvorson v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. 240 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1976
Halvorson v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. 240 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1976
See, e. g., Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368
Continental Casualty Co. v. Reserve Insurance 238 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1976
Continental Casualty Co. v. Reserve Insurance 238 N.W.2d 862 Minn. 1976
See, e. g., Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368
Kronzer v. First Nat. Bank of Minneapolis 235 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1975
Kronzer v. First Nat. Bank of Minneapolis 235 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1975
See, e. g., Sorenson v. Safety Flate, Inc. 298 Minn. 353 , Hillman v. Ellingson, 298 Minn. 346 , Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368
Hillman v. Ellingson 215 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1974
Sorenson v. Safety Flate, Inc. 216 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1974
Carlson v. Smogard 215 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1974
Sorenson v. Safety Flate, Inc. 216 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1974
Haney v. International Harvester Co. 294 Minn. 375 , Kenyon v. F. M. C. Corp. 286 Minn. 283 , Larsen v. Minneapolis Gas Co. 282 Minn. 135 , Thill v. Modern Erecting Co. 272 Minn. 217 , Daly v. Bergstedt, 267 Minn. 244 , Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368 , Lunderberg v. Bierman, 241 Minn. 349 , , 43 A. L. R. 2d 865 (1954).
Carlson v. Smogard 215 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1974
*367 In Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368, 374 , we stated: * * [T]his court has long held that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is intended to control only the rights between employer and employee and does not by its terms prevent contribution or indemnity where appropriate.” The Hendrickson case goes further to delineate the limi
Hillman v. Ellingson 215 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1974
“* * * Contribution is appropriate where there is a common liability among the parties, whereas indemnity is appropriate where one party has a primary or greater liability or duty which justly requires him to bear the whole of the burden as between the parties.” Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368, 371 , Haney v. International Harvester Co. 294 Minn. 375, 378
Bjorklund v. Hantz 208 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1973
Bjorklund v. Hantz 208 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1973
he possession, and control of defendant Grover as to be unreasonably dangerous to a prospective user or person to be reasonably expected to be in the vicinity of the probable use of its product” and that Grover was negligent “in not discovering and correcting the defect.” The trial court granted Grover indemnity against Bombardier on the authority of Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368, 373
Haney v. International Harvester Company 201 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1972
Haney v. International Harvester Company 201 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1972
Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368
Altendorfer v. Jandric, Inc. 199 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1972
Altendorfer v. Jandric, Inc. 199 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1972
First, it is doubtful that the third-party complaint states an appropriate claim for indemnity or contribution under the principles stated in Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368