DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., 512 N.W.2d 872.

35 citing documents.

  • Jacquelyn Karre, et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    see also Weston v. McWilliams & Assocs., Inc., (stating that the issue in City of Willmar “was whether the crossclaim for contribution and indemnity could go forward when the underlying action had been barred by the statute of limitations”).
  • Andrew Geist, individually and as parent and natural guardian of minor, T.G., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.
  • 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
    City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. , , 874 (Minn. 1994) ; see also Engvall , d at 568 ("The very essence of the action of contribution is common liability.").
  • Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Judy Brown v. Judith M. Lee 859 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    “Contribution requires, first, a common liability of two or more actors to the injured party, and second, payment by one of the actors of more than its fair share of the common liability.” City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., (“The very essence of the action of contribution is common liability.” (quotation omitted)).
  • Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2014
  • Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2014
    See City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., (“[A] statute of limitations defense does not negate liability; it is only a procedural device that is raised after the events giving rise to liability have occurred, and which precludes the plaintiff from collecting on that liability”).
  • Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
  • Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
    See, e.g., City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.
  • United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC 813 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2012
  • United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC 813 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2012
    See City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., (stating that indemnity may be available when "a party fails to discover or prevent another’s fault and, consequently, pays damages for which the other party is primarily liable”); Zontelli & Sons, (explaining that a party is entitled to in
  • Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
  • Fleeger v. Wyeth 771 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2009
    statutes of limitations have both substantive and procedural aspects,” they are “primarily procedural laws”); City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., (“[A] statute of limitations does not negate liability; it is only a procedural device that is raised after the events giving rise to liability have occurred, and which precludes the plaintiff from collecting on that liability.”); (describing
  • Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Christian v. Birch 763 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Co., , 361 n. 7 (Minn.1998) (noting that “we have consistently regarded statutes of limitation as primarily procedural laws”); City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, *58 Inc., (describing the statute of limitations as a “procedural device” in an indemnity case); (same); Klimmek v. Indep.
  • Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
  • Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc. 716 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 2006
  • 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
    See Tolbert v. Gerber Indus., Inc., -68 (Minn.1977) (noting indemnity generally shifts loss away from faultless party who is nevertheless liable in tort); City of Willmar v. Short-Elliotf-Hendrickson, Inc., (stating contribution “not based upon contract or tort, * * * but on one party paying more than its fair share of a common liability”).
  • In Re Shigellosis Litigation 647 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    See Tolbert v. Gerber Indus., Inc., -68 (Minn.1977) (noting indemnity generally shifts loss away from faultless party who is nevertheless liable in tort); City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., (stating contribution "not based upon contract or tort, * * * but on one party paying more than its fair share of a common liability").
  • Zaffke v. Wallestad 642 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Zaffke v. Wallestad 642 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    Cf. City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., (explaining that where the plaintiffs case failed as to one defendant, the cross-claim by a co-defendant survived).
  • 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
    City of Willmar v. Short-Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc.
  • Brua v. Olson 621 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Brua v. Olson 621 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    See, e.g., City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., (stating that a “statute of limitations defense is frequently dependent on when the plaintiff decides to commence suit, a decision outside the control” of the party seeking contribution and indemnity).
  • Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections 598 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    See City of Willmar v. Shortr-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., (declining to reach constitutional question where not necessary for resolution of the case).
  • In Re the Trusteeship of Williams 591 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • KENNECOTT HOLDINGS v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 578 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1998
  • KENNECOTT HOLDINGS v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 578 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1998
    See City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc., Klimmek v. Independent School District No. 487
  • Oelschlager v. Magnuson 528 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • Oelschlager v. Magnuson 528 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    Contribution requires common liability of two or more actors and payment by one of the actors of “more than its fair share of a common liability.” City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.