DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 93 N.W.2d 552.

76 citing documents.

  • Ritter v. M.A. Mortenson Co. 352 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    In McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501 , the court further explained that this “common pool” type of situation exists under the following circumstances: (1) The employers must be engaged on the same project; (2) The employees must be working together (common activity); and (3) In such fashion that they are subject to the same or simila
  • Peterson v. Kludt 317 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1982
  • Peterson v. Kludt 317 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1982
    See McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 504-06 , -56 (1958); Tevoght v. Polson, 205 Minn. 252, 253-54 , 285 N.W.
  • Newland v. Overland Express, Inc. 295 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1980
  • Newland v. Overland Express, Inc. 295 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1980
    1 McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506
  • Gleeman v. Oren Triplett 222 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1974
  • Gleeman v. Oren Triplett 222 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1974
    McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. 253 Minn. 501
  • Fick v. Wolfinger 198 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1972
  • Fick v. Wolfinger 198 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1972
    3 The instructions, of course, could not have been *490 given even if requested, McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. 253 Minn. 501, 515 , and the motion was on that ground properly denied.
  • Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Lafortune 179 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
  • Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Lafortune 179 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
    Coons and Raj ala thereupon moved for a mistrial on the authority of our decision in McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. 253 Minn. 501 , 93 N. W. (2d) 552 , where we held it was error to reveal the consequences of a special verdict.
  • Cashman v. Matson 174 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1970
  • Cashman v. Matson 174 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 1970
    McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. 253 Minn. 501 , 93 N. W. (2d) 552 .
  • Kramer v. Kramer 162 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1968
  • Kramer v. Kramer 162 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 1968
    In McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. 253 Minn. 501, 516 , 93 N. W. (2d) 552, 562 , this court stated: “One purpose of the special verdict is to permit the jury to make findings of ultimate facts, free from bias, prejudice, and sympathy and without regard to the effect of their answers upon the ultimate outcome of the case.
  • Thill v. Modern Erecting Company 136 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1965
  • Thill v. Modern Erecting Company 136 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 1965
    McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. 253 Minn. 501 , 93 N. W. (2d) 552 .
  • Gardner v. Germain 117 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1962
  • Gardner v. Germain 117 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1962
    McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. 253 Minn. 501 , 93 N. W. (2d) 552 .
  • Johnson v. O'BRIEN 105 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1960
  • Johnson v. O'BRIEN 105 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1960
    In McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. 253 Minn. 501 , 93 N. W. (2d) 552 , we held that it was prejudicial error for the court to inform the jury in its instruction, expressly or by necessary implication, of the effect of an answer to a question of the special verdict upon the ultimate right of either party to recover or on the ultimate liability of either party, where
  • Knopp v. Gutterman 102 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1960
  • Knopp v. Gutterman 102 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1960
    3 Casey v. Northern States Power Co. 247 Minn. 295 , 77 N. W. (2d) 67 ; Nyberg v. Little Falls Black Granite Co. 192 Minn. 404 , ; Langland v. State Dept. of Highways, 250 Minn. 544 , 85 N. W. (2d) 736 ; Christopherson v. Security State Bank, 256 Minn. 191 , 97 N. W. (2d) 649 ; McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. 253 Minn. 501 , 93 N. W. (2d) 552 .
  • Cayse v. Foley Brothers, Inc. 96 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1959
  • Cayse v. Foley Brothers, Inc. 96 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1959
    We last had occasion to consider this problem in McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp. 253 Minn. 501 , 93 N. W. (2d) 552 , and the opinions therein fully cover the applicable case law and the conflicting views involved in interpreting § 176.061.
  • Springborg v. WILSON & CO. INC. 95 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 1959