Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Simon, 493 N.W.2d 528.

26 citing documents.

Craig A Reichel, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
20, 1993) ; see also Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc., (detailing the duties of an employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior).
Ann Massert, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.
Doe 598, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
8 In State v. Simon, this court concluded that the o ffense of test refusal, “committed after a detailed warning of the consequences and after the driver has been apprehended, is not part of the same behavioral incident as driving while under the influence.” d 719, 721 (Minn. App.) (emphasis added), rev’d mem.
Alla K. Popovich, as wife and Guardian Ad Litem for Aleksandr M. Popovich, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
liable for the act of an agent committed in the course and within the scope of the agency and not for a purpose personal to the agent.” Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.
Streambend Properties II, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.
AgCountry Farm Credit Services, ACA, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc., (explaining that doctrine of vicarious liability makes a principal liable for acts its agent commits in the course and scope of the agency that are not for a purpose personal to the agent).
Jeffrey Beckman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robert A. Tenold v. Green Line Home Services, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In general, a principal is liable for the acts of its agent “committed in the course of and within the scope of the agency.” Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.
Antler Ridge, LLC v. Citizens State Bank-Midwest, Perry Hillman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc., (explaining the doctrine of vicarious liability makes a principal liable for acts its agent commits in the course and scope of the agency that are not for a purpose personal to the agent).
State v. St. John 847 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
§ 609.035 [the driver] may be sentenced for only one of the two offenses.” , 528 (Minn. 1992).
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.
Johnson v. Peterson 734 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 317 (1965).
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability v. Metropolitan Council 671 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See, e.g., Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc., Flour Exeh.
Buck v. Freeman 619 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.
Haage v. Steies 555 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Hoppe, d at 638 (no private right of action under the Vulnerable Adults Reporting Act); (no private right of action under the Real Estate Brokers Act because enforcement provisions indicated a legislative intent to preclude private right of action); Larsen v. Wright County Human Serv.
Bruchas v. Preventive Care, Inc. 553 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc., -34 (Minn.1992).
Bedow v. Watkins 552 N.W.2d 543 Minn. 1996
Similarly, they argue, Eldrid Realty could not be liable because this court’s decision in Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc., indicates that a broker-is not liable for the intentional torts of his salespersons.
Fluoroware, Inc. v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 545 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc., -48 (Minn.App.1991) (declining to impose sanctions against parties who submitted brief with length in excess of applicable page limit), rev’d in part on other grounds
Reed v. University of North Dakota 543 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.
Bedow v. Watkins 539 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.
State v. Orsello 529 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(finding no implied cause of action because legislature aware of method for creating one and did not use it).
Oelschlager v. Magnuson 528 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Redeemer argues that the employee must be motivated by a desire to further the employer’s business in order for the employee’s acts to be within the scope of employment, citing Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.
Larsen v. Wright County Human Service Agency-Day Care Division 526 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc., (Real Estate Brokers Act does not provide private cause of action); , 47 n. 4 (Minn.1990) (criminal statute generally does not give rise to civil cause of action); (no private cause of action for violation of statute
Yunker v. Honeywell, Inc. 496 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.