Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d 490.

159 citing documents.

Dennis Simmons D.D.S., P.A. v. Modern Aero, Inc. 603 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
We reject appellant’s interpretation of the supreme court’s policy that the consumer protection statutes “reflect a clear legislative policy encouraging aggressive prosecution of statutory violations.”
Marriage of Leffler v. Leffler 602 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of Leffler v. Leffler 602 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State by Humphrey v. Philip Morris, Inc.
Holiday Recreational Industries, Inc. v. Manheim Services Corp. 599 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Holiday Recreational Industries, Inc. v. Manheim Services Corp. 599 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Furthermore, the supreme court has provided for a strict application of the act’s provisions, explaining that the act reflects “a clear legislative policy encouraging aggressive prosecution of statutory violations.” (reviewing those portions relating to consumer fraud, unlawful and deceptive trade practices, and false advertising).
Nickelson v. Mall of America Co. 593 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Nickelson v. Mall of America Co. 593 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
It is well established, however, that “one who assumes to act * * ⅜ may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully, if he acts at all.” State by Humphrey v. Philip Morris, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Epland v. Meade Insurance Agency Associates, Inc. 564 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1997
Epland v. Meade Insurance Agency Associates, Inc. 564 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1997
§ 325D.57; -96 (Minn.1996).