Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Vacura v. Haar's Equipment, Inc., 364 N.W.2d 387.

41 citing documents.

In re: the Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of William Sczepanski. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Vacura v. Haar’s Equip., Inc.
Fleming v. Hagen Estate 702 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Fleming v. Hagen Estate 702 N.W.2d 786 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Wendinger v. Forst Farms, Inc. 662 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wendinger v. Forst Farms, Inc. 662 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Vacura v. Haar’s Equip., Inc., (stating that existence of agency relationship is question of fact).
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
Va-cura v. Haars Equip., Inc.
Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc. 634 N.W.2d 176 Minn. 2001
Stein v. O'BRIEN 565 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Stein v. O'BRIEN 565 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato 563 N.W.2d 291 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato 563 N.W.2d 291 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See Vacura v. Haar’s Equip., Inc., (noting that summary judgment is not intended as substitute for trial when there are genuine fact issues to be determined).
Radel v. Bloom Lake Farms 553 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Radel v. Bloom Lake Farms 553 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Vacura v. Hoar’s Equip., Inc., (“existence of an agency relationship is a question of fact”).
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minneapolis v. City of Lakeville 532 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Minneapolis v. City of Lakeville 532 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Vacura v. Haar’s Equip., Inc.
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Leubner v. Sterner 483 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Leubner v. Sterner 483 N.W.2d 518 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Vacura v. Harr’s Equip., Inc.
Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance v. Tifco, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance v. Tifco, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Vacura v. Haar’s Equipment, Inc.
Oak Ridge Care Center, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 452 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Oak Ridge Care Center, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 452 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
56.03; Vacura v. Haar’s Equipment, Inc.
Foley v. WCCO Television, Inc. 449 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Connelly v. Northwest Publications, Inc. 448 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Olesen v. Manty 438 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Olesen v. Manty 438 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Vacura v. Haar’s Equipment, Inc.
Art Goebel, Inc. v. Array Construction Co. 437 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Art Goebel, Inc. v. Array Construction Co. 437 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Vacura v. Haar’s Equipment, Inc.
Schneider v. Buckman 412 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Schneider v. Buckman 412 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Vacura v. Haar’s Equipment, Inc.
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
See Vacura v. Haar’s Equipment, Inc., (existence of agency relationship is a question of fact).
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
Vaciera v. Haar’s Equipment, Inc.
Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. v. North Lakes Construction, Inc. 400 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. v. North Lakes Construction, Inc. 400 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Vacura v. Haar’s Equipment, Inc.
Tradex, Inc. v. Modern Merchandising, Inc. 386 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Tradex, Inc. v. Modern Merchandising, Inc. 386 N.W.2d 800 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Vacura v. Haar’s Equipment, Inc.
First National Bank of LeCenter v. Farmers Union Marketing & Processing Ass'n 371 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
First National Bank of LeCenter v. Farmers Union Marketing & Processing Ass'n 371 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Vacura v. Haar’s Equipment, the supreme court reversed the trial court because it did not submit a similar question to the jury: [Wjhether or not Allis-Chalmers authorized the sale of the tractor and disc to Borg-Warner is a genuine issue of material fact.