Legal Opinion

City of Willmar v. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 11, 1994No. C8-92-1614PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SIMONETT, Justice.

This case returns to us asking whether a defendant’s crossclaim for indemnity and contribution against a codefendant will lie when the plaintiffs cause of action against the codefendant is barred by the statute of limitations. We hold the crossclaim survives, and we reverse.

This litigation began in 1987 when the City of Willmar, plagued by a malfunctioning waste water treatment plant, sued three defendants: the consulting engineers, Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. (Short-Elliott); the manufacturer of a critical component, Clow Corporation; and the general contractor,…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. McDermott v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Tolbert v. Gerber Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  3. Hapka v. Paquin FarmsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  4. Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1992
  5. Perry v. Pioneer Wholesale Supply Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Weston v. McWilliams & Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
  2. Sanchez v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  3. Central Washington Refrigeration, Inc. v. BarbeeWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  4. United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLCSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  5. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Nishika Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)1994

36 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