Legal Opinion

Hallas v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 12, 1995No. CX-95-1371PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PARKER, Judge.

Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc., appeals the district court’s denial of its summary judgment motion, arguing that because it provided workers’ compensation coverage for David Hallas, an employee of a Naegele subcontractor, it is entitled to tort immunity under Minn.Stat. § 176.031 (1994) by exercise of the election provided by Minn.Stat. § 176.041, subd. la(f) (1994). The district court held that because Hallas was not an independent contractor but, rather, the employee of an independent contractor, Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. la(f), did not apply, We affirm.

FACTS

In…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  2. McGowan v. Our Savior's Lutheran ChurchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  3. Danek v. Meldrum Manufacturing & Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  4. Carlson v. SmogardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  5. Rademaker v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1976

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Dakota Fire Insurance Co. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997
  2. Meiske v. Lift-Stak & Stor, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
  3. Meyer v. Duluth Building Trades Welfare FundDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API