Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc., 252 N.W.2d 107.

139 citing documents.

Dale Zubke, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., (stating “where a contract is silent as to the time of performance, the general rule is that the contract must be performed within a reasonable time”).
Joey Gunderson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
James Dennis Omwenga, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
Craig A. Reichel v. Wendland Utz, LTD Minn. 2024
Co., (analogizing the duty of an attorney in representing a client to the duty of reasonable care in an ordinary negligence case).
Oehlerts & Sons Construction, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
SECURA Insurance Company, as subrogee of Lance Goettl d/b/a TLG Farm Partnership v. Deere & Company, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
SECURA Insurance Company, as subrogee of Lance Goettl d/b/a TLG Farm Partnership v. Deere & Company, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Co., d 107, 116 (Minn. 1977)).
Demo Unlimited Incorporated, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Craig A Reichel, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Ann Massert, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Goldmount Veterinary Center, P.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. 2022
Steven Lee Mittelstaedt, et al., Minn. 2022
Whether the statute applies to a case is a threshold issue for the district court to decide by examining “each element of the prima facie case of malpractice.” –49 (Minn. 2015)
James Russell, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Jay A. Soeffker, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sandra D’Antonio, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Taofeek Ishola, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Christina Ginther, Plaintiff, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The law implies a promise of indemnity from a principal to his agent for any damages resulting from the acts of the agent in the good faith execution of that agency.” Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc.
Bay Side Recycling Company LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nonetheless, special-verdict questions “need not be questions of pure fact, but, in the discretion of the trial court, may be in the form of ultimate 8 fact questions.” Hill v. Okay Const. Co. , ( citing Thielbar v. Juenke , ).
Daniel D. Oberpriller, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Co. , (“The test of contractual formation is an objective one, to be judged by the words and actions of the parties and not by their subjective mental intent.”).
In re: Sidney A. Goodman Revocable Trust, U/A/D December 16, 1985 as Amended Minn. Ct. App. 2018
John Kalenberg, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Hill v. Okay Const. Co., Inc., 312 Minn. 324, 337–38, –17 (1977).
Linda E. Walsh v. Richard J. Walsh, Warrenn C. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Linda E. Walsh v. Richard J. Walsh, Warrenn C. Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Co., 312 Minn. 324, 337, 7 (1977).
Mary A. Zirbes v. Meshbesher and Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mary A. Zirbes v. Meshbesher and Spence, Ltd. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Corrine M. Fingalson v. George A. Carlson and Jeanette D. Carlson, individually and as trustees under the Carlson … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Corrine M. Fingalson v. George A. Carlson and Jeanette D. Carlson, individually and as trustees under the Carlson … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joel Wells v. Rick E. Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joel Wells v. Rick E. Mattox Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Guzick v. Kimball 869 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2015
Guzick v. Kimball 869 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2015
The issue first appeared in Hill v. Okay Construction Co., 312 Minn. 324, 336-36
Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Timothy Guzick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George J. Nyberg and as Trustee of the George … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 845 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2014
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 845 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2014
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 834 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Co., 312 Minn. 324 , in which the supreme court held that, under rule 49.01, a district court has authority “to make such additional findings supplementing a special verdict as are necessary to render a judgment.” Id.
United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC 813 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2012
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Schmitz argues that expert testimony was not needed, relying on Hill v. Okay Construction Co., which holds that the general rule requiring expert testimony is subject to an exception “in cases where the conduct complained of can be evaluated adequately by a jury in the absence of expert testimony.” 312 Minn. 324, 337
Graff v. ROBERT M. SWENDRA AGENCY, INC. 776 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Graff v. ROBERT M. SWENDRA AGENCY, INC. 776 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Co., 312 Minn. 324, 331, 344-46 , 120-21 (1977) (noting that the only party found negligent was the attorney Ranta, not the Hills, who received indemnity as the agents of Okay); Art Goebel v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., (noting that the agent's conduct was "undisputedly non-neglig
Fontaine v. Steen 759 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Fontaine v. Steen 759 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Antone v. Mirviss 720 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2006
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Noske v. Friedberg 713 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 691 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2005

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by