Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Miller v. Market Men's Mutual Insurance, 115 N.W.2d 266.

36 citing documents.

Hayley Elizabeth Kytta, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Co., d 266, 268 (Minn. 1962).
Manjit I. Bajwa v. Timothy Bailey, Minnesota Lawyers Mutual (MLM) Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Manjit I. Bajwa v. Timothy Bailey, Minnesota Lawyers Mutual (MLM) Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Co., 262 Minn. 509, 511, d 266, 268 (1962).
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Gusk v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1997
Gusk v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1997
Co., 262 Minn. 509, 511-12 , (citing Gjovik v. Bemidji Local Bus Line, 223 Minn. 522 , ); -88 (Minn.1994) (“Because insurance contracts in Minnesota are contracts of indemnity, the plaintiff must obtain a judgment against the insured on the issue o
Rw v. Tf 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Rw v. Tf 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Co., 262 Minn. 509, 513 , (order deciding contract liability between insurer and insured not res judicata as to tort plaintiff).
R.W. v. T.F. 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
R.W. v. T.F. 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Co., 262 Minn. 509, 513 , (order deciding contract liability between insurer and insured not res judicata as to tort plaintiff).
Anderson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 414 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Anderson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 414 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The rule was restated in Miller v. Market Men’s Mutual Insurance Co., 262 Minn. 509, 511 , : It is established in this state that an injured person possesses no direct cause of action against the insurer of the tort-feasor prior to recovery of judgment against the latter.
Morris v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 386 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1986
Morris v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 386 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1986
Miller v. Market Men’s Mutual Insurance Co., 262 Minn. 509
Davis v. Furlong 328 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1983
Davis v. Furlong 328 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1983
Miller v. Market Men’s Mutual Insurance Co., 262 Minn. 509
Rinn v. Transit Casualty Co. 322 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1982
Rinn v. Transit Casualty Co. 322 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 1982
See Miller v. Market Men’s Mutual Insurance Co., 262 Minn. 509
Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Evans 636 P.2d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Zahler v. Manning 295 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1980
Zahler v. Manning 295 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1980
See, e. g., Miller v. Market Men’s Mutual Insurance Co., 262 Minn. 509
State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Lee 257 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1977
State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. Lee 257 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1977
Zappa v. Fahey 245 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1976
Zappa v. Fahey 245 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1976
Myers v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 225 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1974
Myers v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 225 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1974
See, Gjovik v. Bemidji Local Bus Line, 223 Minn. 522 , and Miller v. Market Men’s Mutual Insurance Co. 262 Minn. 509
Engelrup v. Potter 224 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1974
Engelrup v. Potter 224 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1974
Co. 262 Minn. 509 , [1962]), this court has held that orders denying motions to intervene as of right under Rule 24.01 are appealable (see, 3 Hetland & Adamson, Minnesota Practice, Civil Rules Ann., p. 275; Thibault *160 v. Bostrom, 270 Minn. 511, 512, note 1 , [1965]; Cunningham, Appealable O
Thibault v. Bostrom 134 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1965
Thibault v. Bostrom 134 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1965
Co. 262 Minn. 509 , 115 N. W. (2d) 266 , the order of the trial judge denying Liberty’s motion to intervene in this case appears to have been based on the ground that Liberty had no protectable interest in the litigation and, so considered, it was as to Liberty a final order.
In Re Application of Sister Kenny Foundation, Inc. 126 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1964
In Re Application of Sister Kenny Foundation, Inc. 126 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1964
Co. 262 Minn. 509 , 115 N. W. (2d) 266 , this court held that a discretionary order or decree permitting or refusing to permit intervention in a cause is not appealable.
Schoening v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. 120 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1963
Schoening v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. 120 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1963
Co. 262 Minn. 509 , 115 N. W. (2d) 266 .