Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE MCNEILUS MANUFACTURING EXPLOSION COORDINATED LITIGATION v. v. Co., 381 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (D. Minn. 2019)

. . . . § 604.02, subd. 1 (providing that parties severally liable for harm must contribute to awards "in proportion . . .

GAUDREAULT, v. ELITE LINE SERVICES, LLC, a G T a, 22 F. Supp. 3d 966 (D. Minn. 2014)

. . . . § 604.02, subd. 1, which now reads as follows: When two or more persons are severally liable, contributions . . . Id. at 686 (quoting precursor of Minn.Stat. § 604.02, subch 1, which then stated without qualification . . . Section 604.02 does not express an intent to modify the common law meaning of “several liability”.... . . . We conclude that whether “two or more persons are severally liable” for purposes of section 604.02, subdivision . . . Stat. § 604.02, subd. 1 to a special verdict in this case. To the extent Decker v. . . .

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC, v. FREE CONFERENCING CORP., 990 F. Supp. 2d 953 (D. Minn. 2014)

. . . . § 604.02; In re Northgate Computer Sys., Inc., 240 B.R. 328, 359 (D.Minn.1999) (citing Witzman v. . . .

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. SWENSON, T. M. L. T. B. L. T. J. L. T. M. L. Co- Co- P., 276 F.R.D. 278 (D. Minn. 2011)

. . . . § 604.02 (“When two or more persons are severally liable, contributions to awards shall be in proportion . . . See Minn.Stat. § 604.02 (“When two or more persons are severally liable, contributions to awards shall . . .

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. v. SWENSON, ESTATE OF LEE T. M. L. T. B. L. T. J. L. T. M. L. Co- Co- P., 687 F. Supp. 2d 884 (D. Minn. 2009)

. . . ADT relies heavily on section 604.02, which includes a specific provision on joint liability. . . .

STAN KOCH SONS TRUCKING, INC. v. GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY,, 517 F.3d 1032 (8th Cir. 2008)

. . . Prior to a May 19, 2003 amendment, Minnesota Statute section 604.02, subdivision 1 provided that a person . . . Law Serv. ch. 71, .§ 1 (West) (amending Minn.Stat. § 604.02, subd. 1); the statute was amended to require . . . Stat. § 604.02, subd. 1(1). . . . .

M. KENYATTA, a k a v. L. STEWART,, 152 F. App'x 616 (9th Cir. 2005)

. . . . §§ 13-604.02(A), 13-1204(A)(2) (1991). . . .

SERVAIS P. v. T. J. MANAGEMENT OF MINNEAPOLIS, INC. d b a s s a A. d b a T. J. d b a s s d b a T. J. d b a s s L. L. G R a L. d b a G R d b a CP a b a a, 973 F. Supp. 885 (D. Minn. 1997)

. . . for Plaintiffs’ damages, liability shall be apportioned in accordance with Minnesota Statutes section 604.02 . . . Finally, the G & R Defendants argue that the state apportionment statute, Minnesota Statutes section 604.02 . . . J. at 22-23) (citing Minn.Stat. § 604.02, subd. 1). . . . an order declaring that the Minnesota apportionment of damages statute, Minnesota Statutes section 604.02 . . .

COATS, v. PENROD DRILLING CORPORATION, M. E., 61 F.3d 1113 (5th Cir. 1995)

. . . . § 604.02; Mo.Ann.Stat. § 537.067; see also Conn.Gen. . . . Responsibility Act as Referred to House Committee on Judiciary, supra, § 7, at 1-35; see also Minn.Stat.Ann. § 604.02 . . . Ann. § 52-572h(g); Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 600.6304; Minn.Stat.Ann. § 604.02; Mo. . . . defendant’s percentage of responsibility); Ill.Rev.Stat., eh. 735, para. 5/2-1117 (same); Minn.Stat.Ann. § 604.02 . . . . § 604.02(2); Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-703(3); N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 507:7-e (III). . . .

In JOINT EASTERN AND SOUTHERN DISTRICTS ASBESTOS LITIGATION. K. FINDLEY, C. Jr. v. A. FALISE, Jr. E. Jr. In JOHNS- MANVILLE CORPORATION,, 878 F. Supp. 473 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . . § 604.02; Miss.Code Ann. § 85-5-7; Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 537.060, 537.067; Mont.Code Ann. § 27-1-703; Nev.Rev.Stat . . .

COSGROVE, B. S. v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS HELICOPTER CO. a, 847 F. Supp. 719 (D. Minn. 1994)

. . . See, Minnesota Statutes Section 604.02, Subdivision 2. . . .

BURSCH v. BEARDSLEY PIPER, a DIVISION OF PETTIBONE CORP. BEARDSLEY PIPER, a DIVISION OF PETTIBONE CORP. v. DeZURIK, a DIVISION OF GENERAL SIGNAL MANUFACTURING CORP. a, 971 F.2d 108 (8th Cir. 1992)

. . . . § 604.02 (West 1988 & Supp.1992). . . . The Hahn court held that section 604.02 did not permit reallocation of an employers’ uncollectible share . . . We believe that the Hahn court’s interpretation of section 604.02 is sufficiently persuasive so as to . . . the Hahn opinion represents the best evidence of Minnesota law regarding the applicability of section 604.02 . . . Beardsley & Piper argues in the alternative that even if section 604.02 were inapplicable, the district . . .

BURSCH v. BEARDSLEY PIPER, a DIVISION OF PETTIBONE CORP. BEARDSLEY PIPER, a DIVISION OF PETTIBONE CORP. v. DeZURIK, a DIVISION OF GENERAL SIGNAL MANUFACTURING CORP. a, 971 F.2d 108 (8th Cir. 1992)

. . . . § 604.02 (West 1988 & Supp.1992). . . . The Hahn court held that section 604.02 did not permit reallocation of an employers’ uncollectible share . . . We believe that the Hahn court’s interpretation of section 604.02 is sufficiently persuasive so as to . . . the Hahn opinion represents the best evidence of Minnesota law regarding the applicability of section 604.02 . . . Beardsley & Piper argues in the alternative that even if section 604.02 were inapplicable, the district . . .

DUROSKO, v. A. LEWIS, 882 F.2d 357 (9th Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 13-604.01 (1982) (now § 13-604.02 (1985)) that Durosko committed the robberies while on release status . . . Under § 13-604.02, the trial judge must sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility . . . The court then imposed the life sentences mandated by § 13-604.02. . . . The question is whether an acquittal under § 13-604 bars an enhancement under § 13-604.02. . . . If the difference in standards of proof is disregarded, § 13-604.02 simply contains one more element . . .

COCIO, v. BRAMLETT,, 872 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1989)

. . . The state contends that Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated § 13-604.02 (Supp.1988), which mandates a . . . Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-604.02. . . . Stat.Ann. § 13-604.02. . . . StatAnn. § 13-604.02. . . . The terms imposed by these statutes differ from Arizona Revised Statute Annotated § 13-604.02. . . .