Legal Opinion
Handy v. Garmaker
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided August 31, 1982No. 51322, 51326PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OTIS, Justice.
This is an appeal from a decision of the district court finding appellants Richard Garmaker and William R. Bergstedt liable to respondents Patrick Handy, Patricia Handy, and Edith Handy, for failure to disclose Garmaker’s dual agency in representing both the Handys and their vendee in a real estate transaction. We affirm.
The essential facts which were found by the trial court and which are governing may be briefly summarized.
During the times here relevant Garmaker is deemed to have been a real estate salesman employed by Bergstedt as a result of Bergstedt’s continuing to sign…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Greer v. KooikerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Hegenmyer v. MarksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Holmes v. CathcartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Tarnowski v. ResopSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
- Anderson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Dahl v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Commercial Associates, Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- Allen v. Burnet Realty, LLCSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- Bedow v. WatkinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Semrad v. Edina Realty, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.