Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co., 353 N.W.2d 899.

110 citing documents.

Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc. 505 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1993
Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc. 505 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1993
Matter of Trust Created by Hill 499 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Matter of Trust Created by Hill 499 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hewitt v. Apollo Group 490 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hewitt v. Apollo Group 490 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha 480 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha 480 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Costello v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 472 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
Costello v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 472 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
Graham v. Special School District No. 1 462 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Graham v. Special School District No. 1 462 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Res judicata and collateral estoppel Under the related doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, a “ ‘right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction * * * cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties.’” (quoting Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 , 99 S.Ct.
In Re the Welfare of M.D.O. 462 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1990
In Re the Welfare of M.D.O. 462 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1990
see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982).
Saudi American Bank v. Azhari 460 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Saudi American Bank v. Azhari 460 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
found collateral estoppel applicable where: (1) the issue was identical to one in a prior adjudication; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the estopped party was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the estopped party was given a full and fair opportuni
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc. 456 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1990
Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc. 456 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 1990
Res judicata (claim preclusion) essentially is a finality doctrine whereby “a final judgment on the merits bars a second suit for the same claim by parties or their privies.”
Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
Johnson v. Hunter 447 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1989
(citations omitted); see also 4 D. McFarland & W. Keppel, Mason’s Minnesota Civil Practice § 2533 (1979) (hereinafter Mason’s).
Wangen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 437 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Wangen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 437 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
* * * We have applied collateral estoppel where: “(1) the issue was identical to one in a prior adjudication; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the estopped party was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) *123 the estopped party was given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the adjudicated issue.” (citations omitted).
Sunrise Electric, Inc. v. Zachman Homes, Inc. 425 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Sunrise Electric, Inc. v. Zachman Homes, Inc. 425 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Klemetsen v. STENBERG CONST. CO., INC. 415 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Klemetsen v. STENBERG CONST. CO., INC. 415 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(common activities of employees not common activities of employers important in determination of “common activity”); (where two employers perform different activities and where the performance of these jobs is only generally related, the “common activity” requirement is not met).
Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London 414 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1987
Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London 414 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1987
Ryan v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. 414 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ryan v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. 414 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Riverbluff Development Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 412 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Riverbluff Development Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 412 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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
(where two employers perform different type of work and where performance of jobs is only generally related, common activity requirement is not met); -19 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), aff'd, (mere supplying of product by one emplo
Schleicher v. Lunda Construction Co. 406 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1987
Schleicher v. Lunda Construction Co. 406 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1987
we found no joint enterprise between city firefighters and NSP employees fighting a fire at the Commodore Hotel.
Murray v. Atwood 404 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Murray v. Atwood 404 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Higgins v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 400 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Higgins v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 400 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
ker’s common law negligence action against third parties is barred if (1) the employers were engaged on the same project; (2) the employees were working together (common activity); and (3) under the circumstances, the employees were “subject to the same or similar hazards.” McCourtie v. United States Steel Corp., 253 Minn. 501, 506
Hansen v. American National Bank 396 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hansen v. American National Bank 396 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
970, 973 , 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979)
Pirrotta v. Independent School District No. 347 396 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1986
Pirrotta v. Independent School District No. 347 396 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 1986
Lang v. Glusica 393 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1986
Lang v. Glusica 393 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1986
Northfield National Bank v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Northfield National Bank v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lang v. Glusica 387 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lang v. Glusica 387 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1986