Legal Opinion

Rademaker v. Archer Daniels Midland Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 3, 1976No. 46364PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

David E. Marsden, Justice. *

We are required in this case to reconcile two legal tests which have developed independently in our precedents for establishing the existence of an employment relationship, the right to control test which has been applied to distinguish employees from independent contractors and the employee’s consent test which has been applied specifically in the loaned employee context.

Plaintiff Joseph N. Rademaker was employed by Cuddy Plumbing & Heating Company, Inc., as an apprentice steamfitter. Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) engaged Cuddy to install certain plumbing…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Renfroe v. Higgins Rack Coating & Manufacturing Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1969
  2. Nepstad v. LambertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
  3. Guhlke v. Roberts Truck LinesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  4. Daniels v. MacGregor Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1965
  5. St. Claire v. Minnesota Harbor Service, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1962

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Danek v. Meldrum Manufacturing & Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. Newland v. Overland Express, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  3. Bilotta v. Labor Pool of St. Paul, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  4. Hicks v. Alabama Power Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1993
  5. Ritter v. M.A. Mortenson Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984

8 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