Legal Opinion

Calder v. City of Crystal

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 23, 1982No. 81-38PublishedCited by 70 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

YETKA, Justice.

This is an appeal from the grant of third-party defendant Schoell’s motion for summary judgment. This motion was based on the ground that the City of Crystal’s cause of action against Sehoell for contribution or indemnification was barred by Minn.Stat. § 541.051 (1980). Only the City of Crystal and Sehoell are parties to this appeal; the other third-party defendants, Hipp and Northern, have agreed to abide by the determination. The original matter is currently pending in district court.

Appellant, City of Crystal, contends that Minn.Stat. § 541.051 (1980) does not apply to the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. Wichelman v. MessnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  3. Wegan v. Village of LexingtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  4. Hunter v. School District of Gale-Ettrick-TrempealeauWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Carlson v. SmogardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974

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

3Cited by70 opinions

  1. Zapata v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  2. Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1991
  3. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Getty Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
  4. Sedar v. Knowlton Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988

65 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