Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Grothe Ex Rel. Grothe v. Shaffer, 232 N.W.2d 227.

55 citing documents.

Minn. 2019
See Calder v. City of Crystal , (“ ‘When a right is dependent on a contingency, the cause of action accrues and the statute begins to run on the date of the happening of the contingency.’ ” ()); Bachertz v. Hayes -Lucas Lumber Co. , 275 N.W.
Dwaine C. Ratfield, Kathleen M. Ratfield, individually and as trustees of the Dwaine and Kathleen Ratfield Living Trust … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Antone v. Mirviss 720 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2006
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
The statute's definition of accrues is consistent with the common law rule that a claim for contribution by a joint tortfeasor "does not accrue or mature until the person entitled to the contribution has sustained damage by paying more than his fair share of the joint obligation.” Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 23-24
Bunce v. A.P.I., Inc. 696 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bunce v. A.P.I., Inc. 696 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(quoting Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 23-24 , ).
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 694 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 694 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 25-26
Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park 682 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park 682 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
nt of essential elements of new claim and late assertion did not, therefore, infringe on defendants’ preparation of adequate defense); Heyn v. Braun, 239 Minn. 496, 501-02 , (allowing relation back of amendment setting forth new cause of action when amendment did not change or vary the facts alleged in the original complaint but merely amplified them); Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 21-23 , -32 (1975) (permitting an amendment of complaint under rule 15.03 to add new plaintiff when defendants h
Haugland v. Mapleview Lounge & Bottleshop, Inc. 666 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 2003
Haugland v. Mapleview Lounge & Bottleshop, Inc. 666 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 2003
P. 15.03 provides that “whenever' the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” See also Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 21-23 , -32 (1975) (applying Minn. R. Civ.
Rice Lake Contracting Corp. v. Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 616 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rice Lake Contracting Corp. v. Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 616 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 25
Ortiz Ex Rel. Ortiz v. Gavenda 590 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1999
Ortiz Ex Rel. Ortiz v. Gavenda 590 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1999
See Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 22-23 , (affirming the trial court’s use of Rule 15.03 to permit relation back of an untimely amendment adding a plaintiff).
Senn v. Youngstedt 589 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Senn v. Youngstedt 589 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
582, 584 (D.Minn.1967) (reciting the general rule for when contribution actions mature in Minnesota); Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 23-24 , (“A claim for contribution does not accrue or mature until the person entitled to the contribution has sustained damage by paying more than his fair share of the joint obligation.”).
Ortiz v. Gavenda 574 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Ortiz v. Gavenda 574 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 21 , -31 (1975) (Minn. R. Civ.
Hermeling v. Minnesota Fire & Casualty Co. 548 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1996
Hermeling v. Minnesota Fire & Casualty Co. 548 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1996
Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17
Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical Center 544 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical Center 544 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
15.03; see Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17 , (amended complaint adding father of deceased minól-as plaintiff related back to date of original complaint).
Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 538 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1995
Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 538 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 1995
See Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 23-24 , Christy v. Menasha Corp., 297 Minn. 334, 338-39 , -77 (1973) (right of indemnity against loss or damage arises when “payment has been made or loss or damage has otherwise occurred”); -07 (Minn.App.1992)
Blomgren v. Marshall Management Services, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Blomgren v. Marshall Management Services, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
4 Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 23-4 , Gustafson v. Johnson, 235 Minn. 358, 364 , (stating a joint “tortfeasor who has been *507 sued ‘has the right to implead the unjoined tortfeasor in plaintiffs action for the purpose of proving
Carlson v. Hennepin County 479 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1992
Carlson v. Hennepin County 479 N.W.2d 50 Minn. 1992
In Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17 , we said Rule 15.03 would allow a complaint to be amended to add a plaintiff after the limitations period.
Moose Club v. LaBounty 442 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Moose Club v. LaBounty 442 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 25-26 , (statute does not toll until one party actually makes a payment greater than his share of liability).
Marriage of Froats v. Froats 415 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Froats v. Froats 415 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17 , (citing Bachertz v. Hayes-Lucas Lumber Co., 201 Minn. 171 , 275 N.W.
Bulau v. Hector Plumbing and Heating Co. 402 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1987
Bulau v. Hector Plumbing and Heating Co. 402 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1987
See Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 23-24
Ocel v. City of Eagan 390 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ocel v. City of Eagan 390 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17 , (contribution); Altermatt v. Arlans Department Stores, 284 Minn. 537 , (indemnification).
Bulau v. Hector Plumbing and Heating Co. 387 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bulau v. Hector Plumbing and Heating Co. 387 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17
Browne v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 377 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Browne v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 377 N.W.2d 74 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 25
In Re Estate of Morse 364 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re Estate of Morse 364 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 23-24 , the supreme court was called upon to determine at what point a cause of action for contribution accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run.
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co. 356 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Construction Co. 356 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
A cause of action for contribution “accrues when the person entitled to the contribution has sustained damage by paying more than his fair share of the joint obligation.” citing, Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17
Calder v. City of Crystal 318 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1982
Calder v. City of Crystal 318 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1982
In Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17 , this court was called upon to determine at what point a cause of action for contribution accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run.
Schulz v. Stanton 310 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 1981