Legal Opinion
Krogness v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided November 29, 1994No. C3-94-861PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PETERSON, Judge.
On appeal from a summary judgment, Stephen Krogness argues that the district court erred in (1) finding that he was not entitled to a commission on a real estate sale under the parties’ express contract or under theories of implied contract or quasi-contract and (2) granting summary judgment when a fact dispute existed as to whether respondent Best Buy Company breached the parties’ contract. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Stephen Krogness is a licensed real estate broker. Krogness and respondent Best Buy Company signed a listing agreement granting Krogness the nonexclusive…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority HouseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Blattner v. ForsterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- National City Bank of Minneapolis v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Atkinson v. Prudential Property Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1994
- Anderson v. Crestliner, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997
- Robert C. Atkinson, an Individual Robert C. Atkinson, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. Prudential Property Company, Inc., an Illinois Corporation Defendant-Third Party-Plaintiff-Appellee Graybow-Daniels Company, a Minnesota Corporation v. Westburne Supply, Inc., a Delaware Corporation United Westburne, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- White v. MINN. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCESCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997
- Patterson v. Wu Family Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.