Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ankeny v. Moffett, 33 N.W. 320.

41 citing documents.

Oelschlager v. Magnuson 528 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Oelschlager v. Magnuson 528 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
But Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , 33 N.W.
Samuelson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 178 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1970
Samuelson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 178 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 1970
1 Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , ; Kemerer v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
Skaja v. Andrews Hotel Company 161 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1968
Skaja v. Andrews Hotel Company 161 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1968
acting with a willful ignorance or disregard to the rights of others and is presumed to have known that he is doing an illegal act.” Applying the rule denying contribution between joint tortfeasors “where the person seeking contribution was guilty of an intentional wrong, or, at least, where he must be presumed to have known that he was doing an illegal act,” first declared in Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , , and most recently reiterated in the Farmers Insurance case, the trial court with def
Oster v. Riley 150 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1967
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Village of Hewitt 143 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1966
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Village of Hewitt 143 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 1966
Co. 201 Minn. 239, 242 , , 114 A. L. R. 173, 176, saying: “* * * Since Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109, 110 , , that rule [prohibiting contribution between joint tortfeasors] has applied ‘only where the person seeking the contribution was guilty of an intentional wrong, or, at least, where he must be presumed to have known that he was doing an illegal act.’ ” By reversing the order sustaining the demurrer
Koenigs v. Travis 75 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1956
Koenigs v. Travis 75 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1956
Co. v. McCarthy, 183 Minn. 414 , ; Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , ; Underwriters at Lloyds v. Smith, 166 Minn. 388 , ; Fidelity & Cas.
American Automobile Insurance v. Molling 57 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1953
American Automobile Insurance v. Molling 57 N.W.2d 847 Minn. 1953
Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , ;Kemerer v. State Farm Mut.
Gustafson v. Johnson 51 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1952
Gustafson v. Johnson 51 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 1952
Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , ; D. M. & N. Ry.
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 50 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1951
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. 50 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1951
Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , ; Underwriters at Lloyds v. Smith, 166 Minn. 388 , ; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Christenson, 183 Minn. 182 , .
Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Danberry 48 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1951
Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Danberry 48 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1951
Such intention is not necessary.” See, also, Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , .
Schunk v. Hotchkiss 43 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1950
Schunk v. Hotchkiss 43 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 1950
Their argument is that under the doctrine of Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , , a judgment debtor entitled to contribution becomes, upon payment and filing of the notice, subrogated by operation of the statute to the rights of the judgment creditor for the purpose of compelling contribution ; that thereby he becomes entitled to proceed summarily by execution to enforce his right
Merrimac Mining Co. v. Gross 12 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1943
Merrimac Mining Co. v. Gross 12 N.W.2d 506 Minn. 1943
Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , ; Manthey v. Schueler, 126 Minn. 87 , , Ann. Cas.
American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Vigen 5 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1942
American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Vigen 5 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1942
Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , , held that contribution is available between joint tortfeasors, absent intentional wrong or conscious illegal act on the part of the one seeking such relief.
Kemerer v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance 276 N.W. 228 Minn. 1937
Kemerer v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance 276 N.W. 228 Minn. 1937
Since Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109, 110 , , that rule has applied “only where the person seeking the contribution was guilty of an intentional wrong, or, at least, where he must be presumed to have known that he was doing an illegal act.” See also Mayberry v. N. P. Ry.
Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Anderson 253 N.W. 374 Minn. 1934
Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Anderson 253 N.W. 374 Minn. 1934
Nor can we find that there has been litigated in this case the issue whether plaintiff should be denied contribution because its insured was intentionally engaged in an unlawful act, under the rule of Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , ; Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Smith, 166 Minn. 388 , ; and D. M. & N. Ry.
Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Co. v. McCarthy 236 N.W. 766 Minn. 1931
Duluth, Missabe & Northern Railway Co. v. McCarthy 236 N.W. 766 Minn. 1931
Long ago this state adopted (Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , ) and more recently has confirmed (Underwriters at Lloyds v. Smith, 166 Minn. 388 , ; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Christenson, 183 Minn. 182 , , the rule that there may be contribution between joint tortfeasors where the ground of their original common liability was simple
Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Christenson 236 N.W. 618 Minn. 1931
Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Christenson 236 N.W. 618 Minn. 1931
A modified rule was adopted by this court in Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , , and has since been followed.
Underwriters at Lloyds v. Smith 208 N.W. 13 Minn. 1926
Underwriters at Lloyds v. Smith 208 N.W. 13 Minn. 1926
There are many exceptions 1 to this rule however and this court in Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , , said that it does not apply where the ground of liability is simply negligence on the part of each in carrying on some lawful business, but only where the person seeking contribution must be presumed to have known that he was doing an illegal act.
Carlson v. Smith 149 N.W. 199 Minn. 1914
Carlson v. Smith 149 N.W. 199 Minn. 1914
Felton v. Bissel, 25 Minn. 15 ; Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , .
Mayberry v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 110 N.W. 356 Minn. 1907
Mayberry v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 110 N.W. 356 Minn. 1907
Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , ; Churchill v. Holt et al., 127 Mass. 165 , 34 Am.
Engstrand v. Kleffman 90 N.W. 1054 Minn. 1902
Engstrand v. Kleffman 90 N.W. 1054 Minn. 1902
364; Ankeny v. Moffett, 37 Minn. 109 , .