Legal Opinion
Todalen v. United States Chemical Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided May 3, 1988No. C0-87-1690, C4-87-2065PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KALITOWSKI, Judge.
This matter involves two appeals. The first is from the trial court’s judgment holding United States Chemical Company (Chemical) liable to George A. Hormel and Company (Hormel) for contribution of workers’ compensation benefits in an employer’s subrogation action brought pursuant to the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act, for recovery of benefits paid to Harvey Todalen, an employee of Hormel. See Minn.Stat. § 176.061 (1986). The sub-rogation action arises from a claim of products liability, specifically failure to warn.
The second appeal is from the trial court’s…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Betlach v. Wayzata CondominiumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- A. J. Chromy Construction Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Lambertson v. Cincinnati Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Vitanza v. Upjohn Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- Gray v. Badger Mining Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- Westbrock v. Marshalltown Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- Hayes v. Spartan Chemical Co., Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.