Volume 308 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Criminal law — guilty plea — acceptance — failure to</bold> <bold>determine knowledge of defenses — factual basis</bold>.

<bold>Trial — closing argument — improper comment</bold>. <block_quote> 1. It is improper in closing argument for counsel to comment on adverse inferences to be drawn from failure of his opponent to introduce deposition testimony which was equally available to both parties, even if the deponent is a person whose testimony would naturally tend to favor that opponent.</block_quote> <bold>New trial — grounds — improper argument — discretion of</bold> <bold>trial court</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Whether improper closing argument had a prejudicial impact on the jury so as to require a new trial is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge who was present when the improper argument was made and could observe its impact on the jury.</block_quote>

<bold>Criminal law — burglary conviction — fairness of trial —</bold> <bold>adequacy of counsel</bold>. <block_quote> Defendant, found guilty of burglary on overwhelming evidence, was not denied a fair trial or effective assistance of counsel.</block_quote>

<bold>Criminal law — appeals from orders dismissing prosecutions for</bold> <bold>lack of probable cause — jurisdiction to hear appeals</bold>.

<bold>Zoning — denial of application for special-use permit —</bold> <bold>propriety</bold>. <block_quote> Where both individual uses of a proposed hybrid use of property are permissible under special-use permits, and where the subject property is manifestly miszoned, we affirm the determination of the trial court that defendant's denial of plaintiff's application for a special-use permit was arbitrary, unreasonable, and unlawful.</block_quote>

<bold>Brokers — exclusive listing agreement — claim for commission</bold> <bold>— rules applicable</bold>. <block_quote> 1. In resolving claims for services rendered by a broker who holds an exclusive listing agreement covering the principal's property, the general rules of agency are applicable. The principal retains the power to revoke, as distinguished from the right to revoke, and may be responsible in damages for a revocation or modification of the agreement made unilaterally by him without cause.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — nature of contract</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Broker's expenditure of time or money in attempting to find a buyer was sufficient consideration for principal's promise to pay a commission, making the listing agreement a binding bilateral contract.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — unilateral modification by principal — effect</bold> <bold>— liability to agent</bold>. <block_quote> 3. The terms of a valid bilateral listing agreement may not be unilaterally modified by the principal without subjecting him to liability for resulting damages to the broker.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 4. Principal's unilateral modification of the terms of the original listing agreement terminated agent's authority to act under that agreement, but entitled the agent to recover damages<page_number>Page 326</page_number> measured in light of the circumstances existing as of the date of the modification.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — withdrawal of property from market — effect</bold>. <block_quote> 5. There was not sufficient evidence to sustain principal's alleged "reasonable cause" for his modification of the agreement, and a seller's decision to remove his property from the market, as a matter of law, does not constitute such reasonable cause.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — same — agent's remedy</bold>. <block_quote> 6. Where an agent has been prevented from performing under a listing agreement for a definite period by his principal, his remedy is an action for damages rather than for the commission which he would have received upon performance. Damages shall be determined by either (a) the amount of net losses caused and gains prevented by the breach, or (b) the reasonable value of the services. No damages are allowed under (a) where the termination is for cause. The agent may introduce evidence as to the reasonable likelihood of his ability to conform to the agreement's terms, and he may introduce evidence of sales made within the unexpired period of the agency agreement.</block_quote>

<bold>Public assistance — overpayment to AFDC recipient —</bold> <bold>recoupment</bold>. <block_quote> 1. Under the circumstances in this case, the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare could recoup overpayment from an AFDC recipient's subsequent grants without specific Minnesota statutory authorization.</block_quote> <bold>Same — AFDC — income tax refunds not reported — character</bold> <bold>for determining AFDC grant</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Income tax refunds are net income actually available for use<page_number>Page 391</page_number> on a regular basis within the meaning of <cross_reference>45 C.F.R. § 233.20</cross_reference>(a)(3) (ii)(<italic>c</italic>) and may be considered income to be applied to current need in the AFDC grant structure.</block_quote> <bold>Same — recoupment regulations — consistency with Social</bold> <bold>Security Act</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Under the facts of this case, Minnesota and Federal recoupment regulations are consistent with the Social Security Act.</block_quote>

<bold>Injunction — use to require termination of junkyard operation</bold> <bold>— propriety — effect of ordinance</bold>.

<bold>New trial — grounds — inattention of trial court</bold>.

<bold>Specific performance — alleged contract among heirs to</bold> <bold>dispose, of property — enforceability</bold>.

<bold>Workers' compensation — compensation claim — commencement of</bold> <bold>"proceeding" — notice of aggravation of symptoms —</bold> <bold>apportionment among insurers</bold>.