DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 128 N.W.2d 324.

81 citing documents.

  • Newland v. Overland Express, Inc. 295 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1980
    Brinkman v. Page Trucking Co., Inc., Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. *618 141, 143
  • Kahn v. State 289 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
  • Kahn v. State 289 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
    In analyzing whether respondent was an independent contractor or an employee of the University, the factors set forth in Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141 , must be considered: “(1) The right to control the means and manner of performance; (2) the mode of payment; (3) the furnishing of material or tools; (4) the control of the premises where the work is done; and (5) the right of the employer to discharge.” 268 Minn. 141, 143
  • Brinkman v. Page Trucking Co., Inc. 270 N.W.2d 278 Minn. 1978
  • Brinkman v. Page Trucking Co., Inc. 270 N.W.2d 278 Minn. 1978
    Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141 , Tretter v. Dart Transit Co., 271 Minn. 131 , Wangen v. City of Fountain, Minn.
  • Wangen v. City of Fountain 255 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1977
  • Wangen v. City of Fountain 255 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1977
    Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, Inc., 268 Minn. 141 , , 23 W.C.D.
  • Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 254 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1977
  • Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 254 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 1977
    The most frequently cited test for distinguishing an independent contractor from an employee derives from Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , where we said: “ * * * It is conceded that the factors applied in testing the relationship are: (1) The right to control the means and manner of performance; (2) the mode of payment; (3) the furnishing of material or tools; (4) the control of the premises where the work is done; and
  • Rademaker v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. 247 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1976
  • Rademaker v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. 247 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1976
    The principal cases relied upon by ADM are Nepstad v. Lambert, 235 Minn. 1 , Lindbery v. J. A. Danens & Son, Inc. 266 Minn. 420 , Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141 , Ismil v. L. H. Sowles Co. 295 Minn. 120 , and St.
  • Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Weber 245 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1976
  • Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Weber 245 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1976
    See, e. g., Lindbery v. J. A. Danens & Son, Inc. 266 Minn. 420 , and Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141
  • Speaks, Inc. v. Jensen 243 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1976
  • Speaks, Inc. v. Jensen 243 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1976
    1 In Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , we stated those standards to be as follows: “* * * [T]he factors applied in testing the relationship are: (1) The right to control the means and manner of performance; (2) the mode of payment; (3) the furnishing of material or tools; (4) the control of the premises where the work i
  • Edelston v. Builders and Remodelers, Inc. 229 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1975
  • Edelston v. Builders and Remodelers, Inc. 229 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 1975
    The standards to be applied in determining whether one is an employee or an independent contractor were detailed in Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , where we said: “* * * [T]he factors applied in testing the relationship are: (1) The right to control the means and manner of performance; (2) the mode of payment; (3) the furnishing of material or tools; (4) the control of the premises where the work is done; and (5) the right of
  • Lundy v. City of Worthington 226 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1975
  • Lundy v. City of Worthington 226 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1975
    The standards to be employed in determining whether one is an employee or an independent contractor were detailed in Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , where we said: “* * * [T]he factors applied in testing the relationship are: (1) The right to control the means and manner of performance; (2) the mode of payment; (3) the furnishing of material or tools; (4) the control of the premises where the work is done; and (5) the right of
  • Dawson v. Eayrs 210 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1973
  • Dawson v. Eayrs 210 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1973
    The guidelines for determining whether a relationship is that of an employee or independent contractor are set forth in Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , as follows: *515 “* * * (i) The right to control the means and manner of performance; (2) the mode of payment; (3) the furnishing of material or tools; (4) the control of the premises where the work is done; and (5) the right of the employer to discharge.
  • Hammes v. Suk 190 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1971
  • Hammes v. Suk 190 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1971
    Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141 , 128 N. W. (2d) 324 .
  • 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
    1 The commission was persuaded by the following statement in Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , 128 N. W. (2d) 324 , 326: “It is conceded that the factors applied in testing the relationship are: (1) The right to control the means and manner of performance; (2) the mode of payment; (3) the furnishing of material or tools; (4) the control of the premises where the work is done; and (5) the right of the emp
  • Toughill v. Melcher 179 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1970
  • Toughill v. Melcher 179 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 1970
    As authority for *269 holding that decedent Toughill was not an employee of Brechet & Richter, the commission in its memorandum stated: “* * * This matter is covered by the rule of Guhlke vs. Roberts Truck Lines * * * 268 Minn. 141 , 128 N. W. (2d) 324 * * *.
  • Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church 149 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
  • Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church 149 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1967
    ne whether on the facts the decision of the commission is correct or even preferable to another, but, rather, only to determine whether the findings have sufficient basis of inference reasonably to be drawn from the facts.” The most recent statement of this court relating to the test for determining whether one is an employee or an independent contractor is found in Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , 128 N. W. (2d) 324, 326 , where this court said: “* * * [T]he factors applied i
  • Tretter v. Dart Transit Co. 135 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1965
  • Tretter v. Dart Transit Co. 135 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1965
    ■ The most recent statement of this court relating to the test for determining whether one is an employee or an independent contractor is to be' found in Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , 128 N. W. (2d) 324, 326 , where we said: “In this court Mrs. Guhlke contends that the evidence supports the finding of the Industrial Commission to the effect that Doughboy was an employer of Vernon H. Guhlke.