Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 82.195 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Renumbered 82.21, subd 2]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1994–2005 · leading case: Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2004).
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2004). “Inherent in the latter question is the issue whether Minn.Stat. § 82.195 (2002), which regulates the content of real estate listing agreements, should be construed to abrogate a broker's equitable remedy to recover a commission as a procuring cause of a sale that is completed…”
Krogness v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 524 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). “309, § 33) (codified at Minn.Stat. § 82.195); Mulholland v. Ferber, 359 N.”
Atkinson v. Prudential Prop. Co., 43 F.3d 367 (8th Cir. 1994). “These included, among other things, a definite expiration date, a description of the real property involved, the amount of any compensation or commission or the basis for computing the commission, and a clear statement explaining the conditions that will entitle the broker to a…”
Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc., 696 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). “at 328-29 (holding that creation of “override” remedy for terminated real-estate broker, under Minn.Stat. § 82.195 (2002), was intended to be an alternative rather than an abrogation of broker’s equitable “procuring cause” remedy), with Hedged Inv.”
Douglas v. Schuette, 607 N.W.2d 142 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). “Minn.Stat. § 82.195, subd. 4 (1998). Because appellant failed to provide a protective list within the statutory period, appellant is precluded from recovering his commission under the override clause.”
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.