Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Humphrey on Behalf of State v. McLaren, 402 N.W.2d 535.

26 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A24-0831 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Matthew Beland, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. 2022
(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Kristen Glaros Hanson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Olimpia Onofre Cedillo, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Robert Norby, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(describing a party’s assertion to call opposing counsel as a witness as a “too-frequent trial tactic”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 813 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 2012
Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc. 813 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 2012
(stating that a government attorney “has for a client the public, a client that includes the general populace” and “must take positions with the common public good in mind”).
Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 662 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2003
Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 662 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2003
(determining that a government legal department is not a law firm under Rule 1.10 so that a conflict of one lawyer does not disqualify the entire Attorney General’s office).
Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District 11 638 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District 11 638 N.W.2d 494 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(citing Jenson for a flexible test for disqualification for a ‘substantial relationship’ between a current and prior client representation.).
Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom 615 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2000
Hoang Minh Ly v. Nystrom 615 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 2000
See, (stating that the attorney general “has for a client the public, * * * [t]hus, a government litigator must take positions with the common public good in •mind, unlike the private practitioner who *314 seeks vindication of a particular result for a particular client”).
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 609 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 609 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(quoting Head v. Special Sch.
Elim Homes, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 575 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Elim Homes, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 575 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Humphrey v. Shumaker 524 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Humphrey v. Shumaker 524 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(holding that attorney general is attorney for the public, and “must take positions with the common public good in mind, unlike the private practitioner who seeks vindication of a particular result for a particular client.”).
Minneapolis Police Officers Federation v. City of Minneapolis 488 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Minneapolis Police Officers Federation v. City of Minneapolis 488 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 1992