Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Huber v. Johnson, 70 N.W. 806.

27 citing documents.

Pamela Maslowski, Minn. 2023
The prohibition on champertous contracts was meant to discourage “ ‘officious intermeddlers from stirring up strife and contention by vexatious or speculative litigation which would disturb the peace of society, lead to corrupt practices, and pervert the remedial process of the law.’ ” Maslowski I, d at 238 ().
Pamela Maslowski, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
attention to “uncounseled agreements, particularly between parties of unequal bargaining power or agreements involving an unsophisticated p arty” and (2) “ensure that litigation financiers do not attempt to control the course of the underlying litigation, similar to the ‘intermeddling’ that we described in our early champerty precedent.” Maslowski, d at 241 ().
Explained Pamela Maslowski, Minn. 2020
Pamela Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, Prospect Funding Holdings LLC 890 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Pamela Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, Prospect Funding Holdings LLC 890 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74, 77-78, 70 N.W.
Johnson v. Wright 682 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Johnson v. Wright 682 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74, 79 , 70 N.W.
Weikert v. Blomster 6 N.W.2d 798 Minn. 1942
Weikert v. Blomster 6 N.W.2d 798 Minn. 1942
Southworth v. Rosendahl, 133 Minn. 447 , , 3 A. L. R. 468; Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74 , , 64 A. S. R. 456.
Hackett v. Hammel 241 N.W. 68 Minn. 1932
Hackett v. Hammel 241 N.W. 68 Minn. 1932
Decision went against plaintiff on the ground that the agreement under which plaintiff advanced his money in 1918 was champertous and so void as against public policy under the rule of Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74 , , 64 A. S. R. 456.
Winders v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 223 N.W. 291 Minn. 1929
Winders v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 223 N.W. 291 Minn. 1929
Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74 , 70 N.W.
Southworth v. Rosendahl 158 N.W. 717 Minn. 1916
Southworth v. Rosendahl 158 N.W. 717 Minn. 1916
6 C. J. p. 143, § 318; Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74 , , 64 Am.
Johnson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 151 N.W. 125 Minn. 1915
Johnson v. Great Northern Railway Co. 151 N.W. 125 Minn. 1915
Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74 , , 64 Am.
Holland v. Sheehan 122 N.W. 1 Minn. 1909
Holland v. Sheehan 122 N.W. 1 Minn. 1909
Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74, 76 , , *366 64 Am.
Isherwood v. H. L. Jenkins Lumber Co. 92 N.W. 230 Minn. 1902
Isherwood v. H. L. Jenkins Lumber Co. 92 N.W. 230 Minn. 1902
Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74 , ; Gammons v. Gulbranson, 78 Minn. 21 , .
Gammons v. Gulbranson 80 N.W. 779 Minn. 1899
Gammons v. Gulbranson 80 N.W. 779 Minn. 1899
The written contract was, in all its material provisions, substantially the same as the one considered by this court in Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74 , .
Gammons v. Johnson 78 N.W. 1035 Minn. 1899
Gammons v. Johnson 78 N.W. 1035 Minn. 1899
Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74 , ; Gammons v. Johnson, 69 Minn. 488 , .
Gammons v. Johnson 72 N.W. 563 Minn. 1897
Gammons v. Johnson 72 N.W. 563 Minn. 1897
The demurrer was sustained by the trial court, citing Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74 , , as authority.