Cited by

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

81 citing documents.

Peggy Adegeye v. BB Home Healthcare, Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Peggy Adegeye v. BB Home Healthcare, Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Development, (); Minn. R. 3315.0555, subp.
Patrick Takuanyi, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The factors to be considered whe n distinguishing between an emp loyee and independent contractor are: “(1) [t]he right to control the me ans and manner of performance; (2) the mode of paym ent; (3) the furnishing of mat erial or tools; (4) the control of the premises where the work is done; and (5) the rig ht of the employer to discharge.”
Sean Roulo, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(quoting Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143, ); see also Minn. R. 3315.0555, subp.
John Doe 101, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The most important factor is “the right of the employer to control the means and manner of performance.” Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143, .
John K. Hochstein, Relator v. Video Surveillance Solutions, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John K. Hochstein, Relator v. Video Surveillance Solutions, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Croix Sensory Inc., d at 800 (quoting Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143, ); see Minn. R. 3315.0555, subp.
Monica Peterson v. A-Z Friendly Languages, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Monica Peterson v. A-Z Friendly Languages, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We consider the factors “in light of the nature of the work involved.” Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143, Minn. R. 3315.0555, subp.
Skylark Opera, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Skylark Opera, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Croix Sensory, d at 800 (quoting Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143, ).
St. Croix Sensory Inc. v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 785 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
St. Croix Sensory Inc. v. Department of Employment & Economic Development 785 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
*800 Traditionally, five factors are used to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor: “(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.” Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143
Unzen v. City of Duluth 683 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Unzen v. City of Duluth 683 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143
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
In determining 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.” Speaks, Inc. v. Jensen, 309 Minn. 48, 50-51 , (quoting Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , ).
Neve v. Austin Daily Herald 552 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Neve v. Austin Daily Herald 552 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143-47 , -28 (1964) (reversing administrative tribunal’s finding of employment relation because evidence, when viewed as whole, did not support that finding).
Moore Associates, LLC v. Commissioner of Economic Security 545 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Moore Associates, LLC v. Commissioner of Economic Security 545 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(quoting Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , ); see also Minn.R.
Boily v. Commissioner of Economic Security 544 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1996
Boily v. Commissioner of Economic Security 544 N.W.2d 295 Minn. 1996
Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143
Boily v. Commissioner of Economic Security 532 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Boily v. Commissioner of Economic Security 532 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See also Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , listing factors to consider in deter *609 mining employee status).
Peterson v. Colonial Insurance of California 493 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Peterson v. Colonial Insurance of California 493 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , (citations omitted), quoted in Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
See Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143
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
at 50 , d at 144 , (quoting from Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , .)
Nichols v. Metropolitan Bank 435 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Nichols v. Metropolitan Bank 435 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
The most important factor is the right of the employer “to control the means and manner of performance.” See Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143
Lewis v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training 425 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Lewis v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training 425 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Speaks, Inc. v. Jensen, 309 Minn. 48, 50 , (quoting Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143 , ).
Klemetsen v. STENBERG CONST. CO., INC. 415 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Klemetsen v. STENBERG CONST. CO., INC. 415 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143
Streiff v. Lungren 393 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Streiff v. Lungren 393 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
ANALYSIS In Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141 , the supreme court listed the factors to be applied in determining whether an employment relationship exists.
Carey v. Coty Construction 392 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Carey v. Coty Construction 392 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143
Flament-Hampshire, Inc. v. Schaefer 391 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Flament-Hampshire, Inc. v. Schaefer 391 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143
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
Speaks, Inc. v. Jensen, 309 Minn. 48, 50 , quoting Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143
LeGrand Supper Club v. Seline 348 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
LeGrand Supper Club v. Seline 348 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Iverson v. Independent School District No. 547, Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143
Kern v. Steele County 322 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1982
Kern v. Steele County 322 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1982
Accord, Guhlke v. Roberts Truck Lines, 268 Minn. 141, 143
Newland v. Overland Express, Inc. 295 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1980