Legal Opinion

National Hydro Systems v. M.A. Mortenson Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 14, 1995No. C1-93-752PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KEITH, Chief Justice.

Appellant, HDR Engineering, Inc. (“HDR”), seeks review of a court of appeals’ ■decision reversing the trial court’s summary judgment of a claim brought by Respondent, National Hydro Systems (“National Hydro”). The principal issue raised on this appeal is whether the general contractor, M.A. Mor-*692tensón Company (“Mortenson”), is obligated under the general construction contract to indemnify HDR for a claim arising out of HDR’s own negligence, thereby creating a circuity of obligation that defeats National Hydro’s claim as a matter of law. Because we conclude that HDR…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Pierringer v. HogerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Farmington Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Fischer Sand & Aggregate, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  3. Ford v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  4. Braegelmann v. Horizon Development Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
  5. Johnson v. McGough Const. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Hoffman Construction Co. of Alaska v. U.S. Fabrication & Erection, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Yang v. Voyagaire Houseboats, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
  3. In re RFC & Rescap Liquidating Trust ActionDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2018
  4. Harleysville Insurance Company v. Physical Distribution ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2013
  5. Katzner v. Kelleher ConstructionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API