Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 82. REAL ESTATE BROKERS AND SALESPERSONS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 82.16 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1973 c 410 s 19]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1966–1987 · leading case: Relocation Realty Servs. Corp. v. Carlson Companies, 264 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Relocation Realty Servs. Corp. v. Carlson Companies, 264 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 1978). · cites it 3× “1971, § 82.16, subd. 2, which provided: “No person shall bring or maintain any action in the courts of this state for the collection of compensation for the performance of any of the acts mentioned in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 82.”
Rueben v. Gibbs, 210 N.W.2d 857 (Minn. 1973). · cites it 4× “1971, § 82.16, subd. 3, which provides as follows: “No duly licensed real estate broker or salesman shall bring or maintain any action in the courts for any commission, fee, or other compensation with respect to the sale, lease or other disposition or conveyance of real…”
Albers v. Fitschen, 143 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. 1966). · cites it 2× “The provisions of § 82.16 are also penal in their nature in that a claim for real estate sale commissions may be defeated by failure to allege and prove in an action for payment that the person bringing the action was *377 “a duly licensed real estate broker or salesman at the…”
R.M. Parranto Co. v. Bernick, 354 N.W.2d 600 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “*603 In 1973 the supreme court decided a case under this statute, then codified as Minn. Stat. 82.16 subd. 3. Rueben v. Gibbs, 297 Minn.”
Nodland v. Chirpich, 240 N.W.2d 513 (Minn. 1976). “1973, § 82.16, subd. 2. 9 This issue was not raised below.”
Gahagan v. Patterson, 316 F. Supp. 1099 (D. Minn. 1970). · cites it 3× “Minnesota Statute § 82.16, subdivision (2), provides: “Necessity of licensing.”
Dellwood Enter. v. Pac. Am. Real Est. Fund, 505 F. Supp. 187 (D. Minn. 1981). “, and plaintiff are separate corporate entities and that neither they nor the corporations were licensed real estate brokers. Gearman deposition, pp. 5-6; Foley deposition, p.”
Rediske v. Johnson, 415 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Here, the agreement was merely an oral contract which may have been breached.”
Minn. Stat. § 82.16(2): 1 case
Gahagan v. Patterson, 316 F. Supp. 1099 (D. Minn. 1970). “Minnesota Statute § 82.16, subdivision (2), provides: “Necessity of licensing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.