DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co., 103 N.W.2d 641.

27 citing documents.

  • Jenson v. Department of Economic Security 617 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Jenson v. Department of Economic Security 617 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    at 51, d at 145 (quoting Geerdes v. J.R. Watkins, Co., 258 Minn. 254, 262 , ).
  • Lakeland Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Engle 450 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Lakeland Tool & Engineering, Inc. v. Engle 450 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    In Geerdes v. J.R. Watkins Co., 258 Minn. 254 , the court explained: The distinction between an employee and an independent contractor may be said to consist largely in the difference between one who undertakes to achieve a given result under an arrangement with another who has authoritative control over the manner and means in which and by
  • Wise v. Denesen Insulation Co. 387 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Wise v. Denesen Insulation Co. 387 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    Geerdes v. J.R. Watkins Co., 258 Minn. 254, 262 , established the following guidelines: The distinction between an employee and an independent contractor may be said to consist largely in the difference between one who undertakes to achieve a given result under an arrangement with another who has authoritative control over the manner
  • Kern v. Steele County 322 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1982
  • Kern v. Steele County 322 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1982
    Fifth, while the right to remove Christine Born from the Kerns’ farm home at will perhaps suggests a de facto right of discharge, this consideration alone is not conclusive, see Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co., 258 Minn. 254, 262 , (citation omitted), and alone cannot overcome the weight of the four prior factors.
  • State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Mecca Enterprises, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1977
  • State Ex Rel. Spannaus v. Mecca Enterprises, Inc. 262 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 1977
    In Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co., 258 Minn. 254, 262 , we noted: “ * * * In a large measure each case must be determined on its own facts.
  • Holzemer v. Minnesota Milk Co. 259 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1977
  • Holzemer v. Minnesota Milk Co. 259 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 1977
    Cf. Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co., 258 Minn. 254
  • Wangen v. City of Fountain 255 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1977
  • Speaks, Inc. v. Jensen 243 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1976
  • Speaks, Inc. v. Jensen 243 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1976
    In determining *51 whether the status is one of employee or independent contractor, the most important factor considered in light of the nature of the work involved is the right of the employer to control the means and manner of performance.” In Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins, Co. 258 Minn. 254, 262 , we noted the difficulty encountered in applying these standards to the facts of each case, but added the following guidelines: “ * * * The distinction between an employee and an independent contractor ma
  • Lundholm v. Beaucraft, Inc. 195 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1972
  • Lundholm v. Beaucraft, Inc. 195 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1972
    In Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co. 258 Minn. 254, 262 , the court said: “* * * The distinction between an employee and an independent contractor may be said to consist largely in the difference between one who undertakes to achieve a given result under an arrangement with another who has authoritative control over the manner and means i
  • Debold v. H. P. Martell & Sons 183 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 1971
  • Debold v. H. P. Martell & Sons 183 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 1971
    No. 102, 251 Minn. 297 , 87 N. W. (2d) 646 ; Tretter v. Dart Transit Co. 271 Minn. 131 , 135 N. W. *116 (2d) 484; Graf v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 234 Minn. 485 , 49 N. W. (2d) 797 ; Mount v. City of Redwood Falls, 260 Minn. 16 , 108 N. W. (2d) 443 ; Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co. 258 Minn. 254 , 103 N. W. (2d) 641 ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Lindbery v. J. A. Danens & Son, Inc. 266 Minn. 420 , 123 N. W. (2d) 695 .
  • Greenlee v. Drees 144 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1966
  • Greenlee v. Drees 144 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1966
    1 Lindbery v. J. A. Danens & Son, Inc. 266 Minn. 420 , 123 N. W. (2d) 695 ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Tretter v. Dart Transit Co. 271 Minn. 131 , 135 N. W. (2d) 484 ; Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , ; Rick v. Noble, 196 Minn. 185 , ; Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co. 258 Minn. 254 , 103 N. W. (2d) 641 ; Mount v. City of Redwood Falls, 260 Minn. 16 , 108 N. W. (2d) 443 .
  • Boland v. Morrill 132 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1965
  • Distinguished Boland v. Morrill 132 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 1965
    In the Lindbery case we said ( 266 Minn. 424 , 123 N. W. [2d] 698): “* * * under a given set of facts we cannot justify inconsistent conclusions simply because a common-law action may be involved in one case and a workmen’s compensation claim in another.” Defendant Olson relies heavily on Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co. 258 Minn. 254 , 103 N. W. (2d) 641 , but the facts in that case and those in the case now before us are clearly distinguishable.
  • Lindbery v. J. A. Danens & Son, Inc. 123 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1963
  • Lindbery v. J. A. Danens & Son, Inc. 123 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1963
    4 Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co. 258 Minn. 254, 262 , 103 N. W. (2d) 641, 646 ; Mount v. City of Redwood Falls, 260 Minn. 16, 19 , 108 N. W. (2d) 443, 446 ; Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25, 32 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696, 700 ; Angell v. White Eagle Oil & Ref.
  • Pettis v. Harken, Inc. 116 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1962
  • Distinguished Pettis v. Harken, Inc. 116 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 1962
    1 Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co. 258 Minn. 254 , 103 N. W. (2d) 641 ; Moorhead v. Grassle, 254 Minn. 103 , 93 N. W. (2d) 678 ; Christopherson v. Security State Bank, 256 Minn. 191 , 97 N. W. (2d) 649 ; Rosvold v. Independent Consol.