Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Horton Ex Rel. Horton v. Orbeth, Inc., 342 N.W.2d 112.

33 citing documents.

Explained Frederick S. Fish, Minn. 2019
See, e.g. , Horton by Horton v. Orbeth, Inc., –15 (Minn. 1984) (noting that 9 Johnson v. Raske Building Systems, Inc., we explained the “correct procedure for apportionment” for the equitable contribution right recognized in Lambertson.
Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co. 925 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Miller v. Soo Line R.R. Co. 925 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Horton by Horton v. Orbeth, Inc. , , 114 (Minn. 1984).
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re Individual 35w Bridge Litigation 786 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Horton by Horton v. Orbeth, Inc., (emphasis omitted).
In Re Horton 668 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Horton 668 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
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
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
The very essence of the action of contribution is common liability.” Horton by Horton v. Orbeth, Inc., (internal quotation marks omitted).
Drake v. Reile's Transfer & Delivery, Inc. 613 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Drake v. Reile's Transfer & Delivery, Inc. 613 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
2d 460, 461 (Minn.1994) (holding that a negligent employer’s contribution to third-party tortfeasor is limited by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid); Wilken v. Int’l Harvester Co., (holding negligent employer must contribute its share of employee’s tort recovery, up to amount of workers’ compensation benefits paid); Horton by Horton v. Orbeth, Inc., (same); Kordosky v. Conway Fire & Safety, Inc., (affirming reduction of employee’s reimbursement to employer for subrogation int
Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co. 515 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Albert v. Paper Calmenson & Co. 515 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Sys., Inc., Kordosky, d at 619, 621 ; Horton by Horton v. Orbeth, Inc., -15 (Minn.1984); -66, 767, 770 (Minn. 1985); Kempa, d at 420-21 .
Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hahn v. Tri-Line Farmers Co-Op 478 N.W.2d 515 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Lambertson, d at 688 ; (joint liability rather than joint or concurring negligence determines the right of contribution).
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
It should be noted that in Spitzack , as in Horton, by Horton v. Orbeth, Inc., the parties being sued for contribution were adjudged at trial as less negligent than the plaintiff.
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
Subsequently, in Horton v. Orbeth, Inc., the Minnesota Supreme Court discussed the Lambertson holding: [W]hile Lambertson speaks in terms of contribution, the real impact of the decision was the limitation of the negligent employer’s right of subrogation.
Kempa v. E.W. Coons Co. 370 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1985
Kempa v. E.W. Coons Co. 370 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 1985
Horton by Horton v. Orbeth, Inc.
Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co. 364 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co. 364 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
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
While common liability is not subject to precise definition, it “does not depend solely on whether or not a plaintiff can enforce recovery against two or more defendants.” Horton v. Orbeth, Inc.
Wilken v. International Harvester Co. 363 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1985
Explained Wilken v. International Harvester Co. 363 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1985
“while Lambertson speaks in terms of contribution, the real impact of the decision was the limitation of a negligent employer’s right of subrogation.” We went on to say, “The employer was obligated to contribute only up to the amount of workers’ compensation benefits payable.” Id.
Bekis v. Schilling 357 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bekis v. Schilling 357 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Horton by Horton v. Orbeth, Inc.
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 349 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 349 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1984