Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Spitzack v. Schumacher, 241 N.W.2d 641.

42 citing documents.

Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 813 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2012
Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud 813 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 2012
at 160 - *75 61 (adopting joint and several liability principles); see also Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145 , (stating that joint liability “ ‘is created at the instant the tort is committed’ ” (quoting White, 272 Minn. at 371 , d at 679 )); Emp’rs Mut.
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc. v. Emmaus 801 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“The doctrine of contribution is an equitable doctrine which requires that persons under a common burden share that burden equitably.” Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Trigger's Supper Club v. Sunridge Farms, Inc. 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
under a common burden share that burden equitably.” Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145 , .(1976).
In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145
Zaffke v. Wallestad 642 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Zaffke v. Wallestad 642 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
“The doctrine of contribution is an equitable doctrine which requires that persons under a common burden share that burden equitably.” Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145
Nuessmeier Electric, Inc. v. Weiss Manufacturing Co. 632 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Nuessmeier Electric, Inc. v. Weiss Manufacturing Co. 632 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
ANALYSIS Contribution is an equitable doctrine that requires that “persons under a common burden share that burden equitably.” Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145
Engvall v. Soo Line Railroad Co. 632 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 2001
Engvall v. Soo Line Railroad Co. 632 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 2001
(alteration in original) (quoting Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143 , 148 n. 2, , 645 n. 2 (1976)).
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 512 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1994
City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. 512 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1994
See Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145
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
Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145-46
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
Spitzack v. Shumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145
Nelson v. Larsen 405 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. Larsen 405 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145-46
Friberg v. Fagen 404 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Friberg v. Fagen 404 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Although the statute of limitations does not necessarily bar contribution claims, see Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145-46 , the Fagens cannot assert a contribution claim against the Nelsons unless the Nelsons are liable to the Fribergs.
Koski v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 386 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Koski v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. 386 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Christensen bases his conclusion that he will be bound on Carlson v. Yellow Cab, 308 Minn. 293 , and Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 366 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1985
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 366 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1985
Contribution, as an equitable doctrine, requires only that “persons under a common burden share that burden equitably.” Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 145
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
Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143
Horton Ex Rel. Horton v. Orbeth, Inc. 342 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1984
Horton Ex Rel. Horton v. Orbeth, Inc. 342 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1984
“[I]t is joint liability, rather than joint or concurring negligence, which determines the right of contribution.” Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 148 , n. 2 (1976) (emphasis in original).
Pautz v. Cal-Ros, Inc. 340 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1983
Pautz v. Cal-Ros, Inc. 340 N.W.2d 338 Minn. 1983
1 We declined, as we had earlier in Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143 , to relax the requirement of common liability in order to permit contribution where the liability of the party seeking contribution is based on the Civil Damage Act.
Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. Blake 311 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1981
Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe v. Blake 311 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 1981
In each of these cases, this court relied on the crucial fact that “the underlying common liability was never extinguished.” Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143, 146
Hart v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 276 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1979
Hart v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 276 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1979
Although the Vigen rule was announced in a case in which the alleged tortfeasors were both defendants in the same action, in Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143 , the rule was held to apply in a case where the tortfeasors are sued in separate actions.
Hammerschmidt v. Moore 274 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1978
Hammerschmidt v. Moore 274 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1978
Appellants contend, however, that those cases are not the law in light of this court’s opinion in Spitzack v. Schumacher, 308 Minn. 143 , and that decision’s treatment of White v. Johnson, supra.
Ascheman v. Village of Hancock 254 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1977
Ascheman v. Village of Hancock 254 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1977
Spitzack v. Schumacher, Minn., Milbank Mut.