Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Keefer v. Al Johnson Construction Co., 193 N.W.2d 305.

27 citing documents.

Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Valley Paving, Inc. v. Stanley Consultants, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Co., 292 Minn. 91, 98-99
Apache Plaza, Ltd. v. Midwest Savings Ass'n 456 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Shore v. Minneapolis Auto Auction, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Shore v. Minneapolis Auto Auction, Inc. 410 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Keefer v. Al Johnson Construction Co., 292 Minn. 91
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co. 401 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1987
Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co. 401 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 1987
Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc. 255 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1977
Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc. 255 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 1977
Restatement, Restitution, § 96, refers to a party seeking indemnity who is “without personal fault.” See, Keefer v. Al Johnson Construction Co., 292 Minn. 91 , Lunderberg v. Bierman, 241 Minn. 349 , 63 Nf.W.2d 355 (1954).
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. 257 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1977
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. 257 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1977
In Keefer v. Al Johnson Construction Co. 292 Minn. 91, 100 , we commented that the negligence of the third party was imputed or vicarious as compared with the active negligence of the employer.
Halvorson v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. 240 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1976
Halvorson v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. 240 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 1976
Co. 292 Minn. 91 , Hillman v. Ellingson, 298 Minn. 346
Anstine v. Lake Darling Ranch, Inc. 233 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1975
Anstine v. Lake Darling Ranch, Inc. 233 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1975
5 For a discussion of the prime contractor’s right to indemnity in such cases, see Keefer v. Al Johnson Const. Co. 292 Minn. 91
Hillman v. Ellingson 215 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1974
Sorenson v. Safety Flate, Inc. 216 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1974
Carlson v. Smogard 215 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1974
Sorenson v. Safety Flate, Inc. 216 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1974
We discussed this primary-secondary liability theory in Keefer v. Al Johnson Const. Co. 292 Minn. 91, 101 , as follows: «* * * [T]he difference between primary and secondary liability, as used in determining the right of indemnity, is based, not on a difference in degrees of negligence or on any doctrine of comparative negligence, but on the difference in the character or kind of wrongs
Carlson v. Smogard 215 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1974
In Keefer v. Al Johnson Const. Co. 292 Minn. 91, 100 , this court stated: “* * * The basis for the third party’s action for indemnity against the insured employer is the breach of an alleged independent duty or obligation owed to it by the employer.
Hillman v. Ellingson 215 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1974
2 Thus, we said in Keefer v. Al Johnson Const. Co. 292 Minn. 91, 100 , : .
Bjorklund v. Hantz 208 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1973
Bjorklund v. Hantz 208 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1973
1 See, also, Hanson v. Bailey, 249 Minn. 495, 506 , White v. Johnson, 272 Minn. 363, 368 , and Keefer v. Al Johnson Const. Co. 292 Minn. 91, 98
Haney v. International Harvester Company 201 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1972
Haney v. International Harvester Company 201 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1972
2 Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368 , Keefer v. Al Johnson Const. Co. 292 Minn. 91 , Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362 , Lunderberg v. Bierman, 241 Minn. 349 , Froysland v. Leef Bros. Inc. 293 Minn. 201
Froysland v. Leef Bros., Inc. 197 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1972
Froysland v. Leef Bros., Inc. 197 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1972
This case is unlike Keefer v. Al Johnson Const. Co. 292 Minn. 91 , where the contractor was awarded indemnity against the subcontractor-employer of plaintiff.