Bedow v. Watkins
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GARDEBRING, Justice.
This appeal involves the “diligent pursuit” requirements imposed upon claimants who seek to recover funds from the Minnesota Real Estate Education, Research and Recovery Fund. Minn.Stat. § 82.34, subd. 7 (1994). The Fund was established in 1973 in part to pay unpaid judgments against real estate licensees, arising from actions covered by their real estate licenses. Minn.Stat. § 82.34 (1994); Moe v. Centurion Inv. Co., 293 N.W.2d 826, 829 (Minn.1980). It is intended as a remedy of last resort, to be accessed when other potential sources of recovery are unavailable.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Ryan v. ITT Life Insurance Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Norby v. Bankers Life Co. of Des Moines, IowaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Handy v. GarmakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Moe v. Centurion Investment Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Amaral v. Saint Cloud HospitalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- Hoffman v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
- Kellogg v. WoodsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- Housing & Redevelopment Authority ex rel. City of Richfield v. AdelmannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- Moren Ex Rel. Moren v. Jax RestaurantCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.