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

Minn. Stat. § 82.18 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
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, Nat'l Ass'n v. Sween Corp., 916 F. Supp. 1494 (D. Minnesota 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Norwest Bank Minnesota, Nat'l Ass'n v. Sween Corp., 916 F. Supp. 1494 (D. Minnesota 1996). · cites it 7× “” 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). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 4× “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, Nat'l Ass'n v. Sween Corp., 916 F. Supp. 1494 (D. Minnesota 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.