Legal Opinion

State v. Lindholm

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 31, 1996No. C7-96-611PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DANIEL F. FOLEY, Judge.

Appellant Tim Lindholm contends that Minn.Stat. § 326.01, subd. 9 (1996), requiring apprentice plumbers to work under the “immediate and personal supervision” of a licensed journeyman or master plumber, does not require that the master or journeyman plumber be physically present at the job site.

FACTS

Appellant was convicted of aiding, advising, hiring, counseling, or conspiring with another to commit plumbing without a state license in violation of Minn.Stat. §§ 326.40, subd. 1, 609.05, subd. 1, and 645.241 (1996), and assisting, authorizing, or permitting…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bizzelle v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1938
  2. In Re the Welfare of D.D.G.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
  3. Salazar v. McGinnUtah Supreme Court · 1972
  4. State v. SaffeelsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. SchramelCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
  2. State v. SlettenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API