Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 82.18 (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[Repealed]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
MS 2002 [Renumbered 82.23]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1985–2000 · leading case: Norwest Bank Minnesota v. Sween Corp., 916 F. Supp. 1494 (D. Minn. 1996).
Norwest Bank Minnesota v. Sween Corp., 916 F. Supp. 1494 (D. Minn. 1996). “” Minn.Stat. § 82.18(e). The Defendants argue that federal law did not authorize Norwest to enter the Agreement.”
Douglas v. Schuette, 607 N.W.2d 142 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). “1 nor that, under Minn.Stat. § 82.18(f), he was exempt from that license requirement; (2) the undisputed record shows appellant did not satisfy the terms of the listing agreement or its override clause; and (3) appellant inaccurately represented the law to the district court.”
Ike v. Anderson, 369 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “Minn.Stat. § 82.18(i) (1982). He argues that this exception applies to him as an employee of Anderson who, as a corporation, was a “person” excepted from the licensing requirement.”
Minn. Stat. § 82.18(e): 1 case
Norwest Bank Minnesota v. Sween Corp., 916 F. Supp. 1494 (D. Minn. 1996). “” Minn.Stat. § 82.18(e). The Defendants argue that federal law did not authorize Norwest to enter the Agreement.”
Minn. Stat. § 82.18(f): 1 case
Douglas v. Schuette, 607 N.W.2d 142 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). “1 nor that, under Minn.Stat. § 82.18(f), he was exempt from that license requirement; (2) the undisputed record shows appellant did not satisfy the terms of the listing agreement or its override clause; and (3) appellant inaccurately represented the law to the district court.”
Minn. Stat. § 82.18(i): 2 cases
Douglas v. Schuette, 607 N.W.2d 142 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). “1 nor that, under Minn.Stat. § 82.18(f), he was exempt from that license requirement; (2) the undisputed record shows appellant did not satisfy the terms of the listing agreement or its override clause; and (3) appellant inaccurately represented the law to the district court.”
Ike v. Anderson, 369 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). “Minn.Stat. § 82.18(i) (1982). He argues that this exception applies to him as an employee of Anderson who, as a corporation, was a “person” excepted from the licensing requirement.”
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.