Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 130 N.W.2d 367.

42 citing documents.

Devon T. Hogan, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Black’s Law Dictionary 75–76 (10th ed. 2014); (“The agent’s authority cannot be greater than the authority of the principal.”).
A p p e l l a n t s , Minn. 2020
Al Dressely, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Medical Center, Inc., Brenda J. Hanson, R.N., and Darlene M. Pratt, R.N., … 875 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2016
Roof Depot, Inc. v. Ohman 638 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Roof Depot, Inc. v. Ohman 638 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Co. v. Barr-Nelson, Inc., Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 562
Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc. 626 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc. 626 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
ving authority, or must have knowingly permitted the agent to act on its behalf,” (2) third parties “must have [had] actual knowledge that the agent was held out by the principal as having such authority or had been permitted by the principal to act on its behalf,” and (3) “proof of the agent’s apparent authority must be found in the conduct of the principal, not the agent.” Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 562 , Restatement (Second) of Agency § 8 (1958).
American Parkinson Disease Ass'n v. First National Bank of Northfield 584 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
American Parkinson Disease Ass'n v. First National Bank of Northfield 584 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 565 , (“Express authority is that authority which the principal directly grants to the agent.”).
Amdahl v. Stonewall Insurance Co. 484 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Amdahl v. Stonewall Insurance Co. 484 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 565
Winkel v. Eden Rehabilitation Treatment Facility, Inc. 433 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Winkel v. Eden Rehabilitation Treatment Facility, Inc. 433 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 565
Foley v. Allard 427 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1988
Foley v. Allard 427 N.W.2d 647 Minn. 1988
Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 562
Schneider v. Buckman 412 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Schneider v. Buckman 412 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
nifestation by the principal that another is his agent; the person who deals with the supposed agent must know of these manifestations at the time of dealing; the manifestation of apparent authority must be by the principal’s actions, not the agent’s. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 8 (1958); Truck Crane Service Co. v. Barr-Nelson, Inc., Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 562
Quinlivan v. Emcasco Insurance Co. 414 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Quinlivan v. Emcasco Insurance Co. 414 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
2d 154, 157-58 (1973); Hockmeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 562 , (apparent authority will be found where the principal holds the agent out as possessing authority or knowingly permits an agent to assume authority, and the party dealing with the agent has actual knowledge the agent was held out as having such authority by the principal); Nehring v.
Foley v. Allard 405 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Foley v. Allard 405 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 562
Lyman Lumber Co. v. Three Rivers Co. 400 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lyman Lumber Co. v. Three Rivers Co. 400 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The manifestation of apparent authority must be by the principal’s actions, not the agent’s. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 8 (1958); Truck Crane Service Co. v. Barr-Nelson, Inc., Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 562
International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 49 Health & Welfare Fund v. Krejec 366 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
INTERN. U. OF OPER. ENG. LOC. NO. 49 v. Krejec 366 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
INTERN. U. OF OPER. ENG. LOC. NO. 49 v. Krejec 366 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 567 , Dahmes v. Industrial Credit Co., 261 Minn. 26
International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 49 Health & Welfare Fund v. Krejec 366 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 567 , Dahmes v. Industrial Credit Co., 261 Minn. 26
Truck Crane Service Co. v. Barr-Nelson, Inc. 329 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1983
Truck Crane Service Co. v. Barr-Nelson, Inc. 329 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1983
Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551, 562
Tollefson v. American Family Insurance Co. 226 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1974
Tollefson v. American Family Insurance Co. 226 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1974
Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551 , 556 , , 378 (1964).
Hornblower & Weeks-Hemphill Noyes v. Lazere 222 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1974
Hornblower & Weeks-Hemphill Noyes v. Lazere 222 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1974
Derrick v. The Drolson Co. Inc. 244 Minn. 144 , Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551 , Duluth Herald & News Tribune v. Plymouth Optical Co. 286 Minn. 495
Hagedorn v. Aid Association for Lutherans 211 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1973
Hagedorn v. Aid Association for Lutherans 211 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1973
Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551
State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Bellows 179 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1970
State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Bellows 179 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1970
7 Pesio v. Sherman, 285 Minn. 246 , 172 N. W. (2d) 748 ; Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551 , 130 N. W. (2d) 367 ; Restatement, Agency (2d) §7.
LaFavor v. American National Insurance Company 155 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1967
LaFavor v. American National Insurance Company 155 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1967
Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551 , 130 N. W. (2d) 367 ; Schliep v. Commercial Cas.
Rasmussen v. Prudential Insurance Company 152 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1967
Rasmussen v. Prudential Insurance Company 152 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1967
We have held that the conception of legal relations between an applicant for insurance and an insurance company is essentially and fundamentally the same as between parties negotiating other contracts, and, as such, is purely contractual, Hockemeyer v. Pooler, 268 Minn. 551 , 130 N. W. (2d) 367 ; 2 that, subject to the statutory law of the state, a policy of insurance is within the application of general principles of the law of contracts, Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287 , 104 N. W. (2d) 19 ; and t