Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hammes v. Suk, 190 N.W.2d 478.

36 citing documents.

Jhonathan J. Robinson v. Robert R. Amos Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jhonathan J. Robinson v. Robert R. Amos Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Dering Pierson Group, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bank , 39 (Minn. App. 1989) (quotation and citation omitted); see also Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233, 235, d 478, 481 (1971) (noting that an independent c ontractor “contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods an d is subject to his employer’s control only as to the end product or final result of his work”).
Michael A. Pemrick, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael A. Pemrick, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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 Frankie v. Twedt, 234 Minn. 42, 47 , (“The determinative right of control is not merely over what is to be done, but primarily over how it is to be done.”); see also Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233, 235 , -81 (1971) (independent contractor remains subject to control over end product).
Hunter v. Crawford Door Sales 501 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1993
Hunter v. Crawford Door Sales 501 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 1993
Minnesota Rules 5224.-0330; Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233, 235-6
North Face Exteriors, Inc. v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training 457 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
North Face Exteriors, Inc. v. Commissioner of Jobs & Training 457 N.W.2d 778 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233, 236
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
Cf. Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233, 235 , (an independent *640 contractor “contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods and is subject to his employer’s control only as to the end product or final result of his work”).
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
The issue may turn on questions of fact disputed by the parties, as in Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233 , (Minn.Ct.
Olsen v. Kling 363 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1985
Olsen v. Kling 363 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 1985
See Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233, 236
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
Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233, 287
Kern v. Steele County 322 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1982
Kahn v. State 289 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
Kahn v. State 289 N.W.2d 737 Minn. 1980
However, the absence of withholding for taxes or Social Security need not be a controlling factor, see Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233, 236
Palmquist v. Meister 277 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1979
Palmquist v. Meister 277 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 1979
Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233, 235
Briggs v. K. W. McKee, Inc. 259 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1977
Briggs v. K. W. McKee, Inc. 259 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 1977
Naebers v. Shell Oil Co. 302 Minn. 544 , 224 N.E.2d 160 (1974); Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233
Wangen v. City of Fountain 255 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1977
Wangen v. City of Fountain 255 N.W.2d 813 Minn. 1977
Prior cases of this court have recognized that in some circumstances a skilled artisan can be an employee although the employer exercises no supervision over the details of the work, Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233 , Christopherson v. Security State Bank of Oklee, 256 Minn. 191
Butler v. Blonigen Construction Inc. 252 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 1977
Butler v. Blonigen Construction Inc. 252 N.W.2d 246 Minn. 1977
Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233 , Minn.St.
Duetsch v. E. L. Murphy Trucking Co. 239 N.W.2d 462 Minn. 1976
Duetsch v. E. L. Murphy Trucking Co. 239 N.W.2d 462 Minn. 1976
Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233
Mansfield v. Gopher Aviation Company 221 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 1974
Mansfield v. Gopher Aviation Company 221 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 1974
Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233
Lundholm v. Beaucraft, Inc. 195 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1972
Lundholm v. Beaucraft, Inc. 195 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1972
Saholt v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 290 Minn. 393 , Hammes v. Suk, 291 Minn. 233