Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jurek v. Thompson, 241 N.W.2d 788.

32 citing documents.

Bremer Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Matejcek 916 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bremer Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Matejcek 916 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Jurek v. Thompson , 308 Minn. 191 , 199 n.5, , 792 n.5 (1976) (holding that a principal "retains some right of control" over an agent).
RK Midway, LLC v. Metropolitan Council Minn. Ct. App. 2017
RK Midway, LLC v. Metropolitan Council Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191, 196
Steven Abrahamson, Relators v. The St. Louis County School District, Independent School District No. 2142, Office of Administrative … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Steven Abrahamson, Relators v. The St. Louis County School District, Independent School District No. 2142, Office of Administrative … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191, 199 n.5, n.5 (1976) (stating that the parties in a principal–agent relationship “are in a fiduciary relationship and the principal retains some right of control”).
Glacial Plains Cooperative v. Lindgren 759 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Glacial Plains Cooperative v. Lindgren 759 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191, 202
Jacobs v. Cable Constructors, Inc. 704 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Jacobs v. Cable Constructors, Inc. 704 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“In the absence of any persuasive evidence of [the elements of agency], there is no agency as a matter of law.” Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191, 200-01
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
Agency is defined as “the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act.” Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191, 197 , (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1 (1958)).
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lundman v. McKown 530 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191, 198 , (rejecting jury’s finding of agency where evidence of “defendant’s right of control * * ⅜ is totally lacking”) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1, cmt.
Plate v. St. Mary's Help of Christians Church 520 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Plate v. St. Mary's Help of Christians Church 520 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Minnesota courts have adopted the Restatement definition of agency, which states that “agency” refers to “the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other to so act.” Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191, 197 , (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1 (1957)).
Mikulay v. Home Indemnity Co. 449 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Mikulay v. Home Indemnity Co. 449 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191, 198-99
Curry v. McIntosh 389 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Curry v. McIntosh 389 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See, e.g., Rehnberg v. Minnesota Homes, Inc., 236 Minn. 230, 235-36 , (right of mutual control is an element of a joint venture); Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191, 198-99 , (principal’s right to control the agent is a critical element of agency).
Tonka Tours, Inc. v. Chadima 372 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1985
Tonka Tours, Inc. v. Chadima 372 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1985
Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191, 202
High Forest Truck Stop, Inc. v. LaCrosse Petroleum Equipment Co. 364 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
High Forest Truck Stop, Inc. v. LaCrosse Petroleum Equipment Co. 364 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191, 197
Dalager v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 350 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dalager v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. 350 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191
A. Gay Jenson Farms Co. v. Cargill, Inc. 309 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1981
A. Gay Jenson Farms Co. v. Cargill, Inc. 309 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 1981
Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191 , Lee v. Peoples Cooperative Sales Agency, 201 Minn. 266 , 276 N.W.
PMH PROPERTIES v. Nichols 263 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1978
PMH PROPERTIES v. Nichols 263 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 1978
Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191 , Tonka Corp. v. Commr.
Teeman v. Jurek 251 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1977
Teeman v. Jurek 251 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1977
Apparently plaintiff contends that defendant’s withholding of the second check constituted a repudiation of the contract and cites Jurek v. Thompson, 308 Minn. 191

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by