Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Haney v. International Harvester Company, 201 N.W.2d 140.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1990
Haney v. International Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375, 385
Willette v. the Mayo Foundation 458 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Willette v. the Mayo Foundation 458 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Haney v. International Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375, 385 , -46 (1972) (common-law right of action may be abrogated without provision of substitute if permissible legislative objective is pursued); Mickelson, The Use and Interpretation of Article I, Section 8 of the Minnesota Constitution 1861-1984, 10 Wm.
Ackerman v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Ackerman v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Haney v. International Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. 432 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1988
Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp. 432 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 1988
Haney v. International Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375, 385
Black v. NuAire, Inc. 426 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Black v. NuAire, Inc. 426 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Compare Haney v. International Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375, 383 , (worker’s compensation statute indirectly abrogated third party’s common law right to contribution).
Schmidt v. Modern Metals Foundry, Inc. 424 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1988
Schmidt v. Modern Metals Foundry, Inc. 424 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 1988
See Haney v. International Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375, 385
Kleeman v. Cadwell 414 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kleeman v. Cadwell 414 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Haney v. International Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375, 385
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc. 396 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1986
Hickman v. Group Health Plan, Inc. 396 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 1986
See Haney v. International Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375 , 201 N.W.
Calder v. City of Crystal 318 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1982
Calder v. City of Crystal 318 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1982
See Tracy v. Streater/Litton Industries, Haney v. International Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375
Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minn. v. Bouma 306 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1981
Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minn. v. Bouma 306 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1981
See Tracy v. Streater/Litton Industries, Haney v. International Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375
Tracy v. Streater/Litton Industries 283 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1979
Tracy v. Streater/Litton Industries 283 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1979
But as we cautioned in Haney v. International Harvester Co., 294 Minn. 375, 384 , White did not involve the issue whether a reasonable substitute was required.
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. 257 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1977
Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp. 257 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 1977
In Haney v. International Harvester Co. 294 Minn. 375 , we reviewed prior Minnesota case law and comprehensively analyzed the predicament of the third-party tortfeasor.
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
1 American Hoist argues that fundamental fairness requires indemnity here, citing several of our previous decisions including Haney v. International Harvester Co. 294 Minn. 375 , Keefer v. Al Johnson Constr.
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
Haney v. International Harvester Co. 294 Minn. 375 , Kenyon v. F. M. C. Corp. 286 Minn. 283 , Larsen v. Minneapolis Gas Co. 282 Minn. 135 , Thill v. Modern Erecting Co. 272 Minn. 217 , Daly v. Bergstedt, 267 Minn. 244 , Hendrickson v. Minnesota P
Carlson v. Smogard 215 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1974
On the other hand, appellant, who did not prevail because of the operation of this statute, argues that “this case is not ripe on the basis of the present record for the Court to reach the constitutional issue,” and suggests that it be remanded to the trial court in line with Haney v. International Harvester Co. 294 Minn. 375
Hillman v. Ellingson 215 N.W.2d 810 Minn. 1974
“* * * Contribution is appropriate where there is a common liability among the parties, whereas indemnity is appropriate where one party has a primary or greater liability or duty which justly requires him to bear the whole of the burden as between the parties.” Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co. 258 Minn. 368, 371 , Haney v. International Harvester Co. 294 Minn. 375, 378
Zentz v. ITT Blackburn Corp. 214 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1974
Zentz v. ITT Blackburn Corp. 214 N.W.2d 466 Minn. 1974
ly against the third person, results in judgment against such third person, or settlement by such third person, the employer shall have no liability to reimburse or hold such third person harmless on such judgments or settlements in absence of a written agreement to do so executed prior to the injury.” Cooper v. Watson, 290 Minn. 362 , Haney v. International Harvester Co. 294 Minn. 375
Schwartz v. Talmo 205 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1973